I got a 2008 Tahoe

[pacem]

I went to an auto auction, determined to get either a Burb or a Tahoe or maybe an Outback or 4Runner.

They had a gazillion vehicles, a mix of everything under the sun. I narrowed down my choice to the 2500 Burb and Tahoe with Outback, 4runner and Tundra being second choices. It's not that they are great cars, they are great value. 2008 and newer.xvc

Anyway, the one I really wanted, I lost the bid. 2009 Tahoe LTZ, 5.3L flex, generally pretty good shape. The miles where somewhere between 117K-130K. I was kind of shocked it sold for 15.5K. Not that far off the book value.

Also looked at this 2009 Burb off CL. 145K, 6.0L/heavy duty tranny - of course turned out to be a county vehicle from an auction. It had a minor accident, the owner said the hood got replaced, headlights and such. Not sure how well they did it, probably some backyard mechanic paint job on the cheap. But it looked nice superficially. No rust. Holes from some equipment that got removed.
Nice car but they wanted 12.5K, which I felt was too much given the accident. Missing rear seats, etc. and mainly the fact that it was a gov vehicle, it might have high engine hours on it. Nice ride for about 8-9K so I didn't even negotiate.

But I want I really ended up getting was this 2008 Tahoe, LT. Plain Jane and 160K miles. 5.3L/automatic. Got it for about 6600. The front bumper needs to be replaced and some body work. I think it will end up around 1000, not really sure.

My previous ride was a 2006 Silverado HD with X-cab and 6' bed and that thing was huge. Parking was usually a nightmare. I test drove a Burb and thought it was noticeably smaller, with Tahoe 20" smaller than Burb apparently. If my math is correct, Tahoe is 40" shorter than the Silverado or more than 3 feet. I have some reservations about 5.3L but the 6.0L is a crazy thirsty engine I never climbed out of 12MPG on the highway, hitting almost 13 and about 10 in the city. The fact these were huge heavy 3/4 ton trucks did not help. Towing, 6.0L it probably gets about the same MPG as the old 460 7.5L engine. However, 6.0L with 3.73 rear gear ratio will move even the heaviest Burbs. Not sure what gear ratio the 2008 Tahoe has. 5.3L does not appear be all that bad on paper at least.

 

[CKN]

So new SUVs and CUVs sales are red hot right now. This trickles down to used ones. No new news here.....


Congrats on the "new to you" vehicle!

 

[SZR48207]

These are the best looking generation. Probably quite affordable to maintain due to the sheer numbers of them sold and solid engine.

Any reason you couldn't squeeze out another 160k miles on it with normal maintenance?

 

[AZjeff]

Read up on GM's early DOD, displacement on demand. First year was 2007 and there were problems with the lifters and such that disabled 4 cylinders going teats up in the early years. Lots of owners disabled DOD with a tune. At 160K you're either good to go, already fixed, or about to replace some valvetrain parts. Plain Jane is good at 9 years and high miles, less stuff to fix as it wears out.

Quote:
Any reason you couldn't squeeze out another 160k miles on it with normal maintenance?


Probably not.

 

[CKN]

Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Read up on GM's early DOD, displacement on demand. First year was 2007 and there were problems with the lifters and such that disabled 4 cylinders going teats up in the early years. Lots of owners disabled DOD with a tune. At 160K you're either good to go, already fixed, or about to replace some valvetrain parts. Plain Jane is good at 9 years and high miles, less stuff to fix as it wears out.

Quote:
Any reason you couldn't squeeze out another 160k miles on it with normal maintenance?


Probably not.



Yep-it amazes me that there are so many on here that think motors are this durable-or the vehicle as a whole will be economical/convenient to maintain with 320,000 miles on the clock- when the expense becomes so great-or the reliability really comes in to question.

Yea-don't post the few, very few exceptions that are out there.

 

[AZjeff]

No doubt lots of the early DOD motors get to 200k with no problems but it's a known trouble spot and good to be aware of what can go wrong and the fixes. Buying a 160k truck at auction is a roll of the dice in any case. They're great trucks, good luck with it.

 

[pacem]

I always thought a car like this should cost 1000/year or 1500 at meaning if I get 4 years out of, I am doing great.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: CKN
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Read up on GM's early DOD, displacement on demand. First year was 2007 and there were problems with the lifters and such that disabled 4 cylinders going teats up in the early years. Lots of owners disabled DOD with a tune. At 160K you're either good to go, already fixed, or about to replace some valvetrain parts. Plain Jane is good at 9 years and high miles, less stuff to fix as it wears out.

Quote:
Any reason you couldn't squeeze out another 160k miles on it with normal maintenance?


Probably not.



Yep-it amazes me that there are so many on here that think motors are this durable-or the vehicle as a whole will be economical/convenient to maintain with 320,000 miles on the clock- when the expense becomes so great-or the reliability really comes in to question.

Yea-don't post the few, very few exceptions that are out there.


OK, CKN, I think you should re-read what was said. "No reason it CAN'T go another 160,000".

They disagree with you.

So do I.

Frame rust has killed every car that I've taken to high mileage. The engines and transmissions have always been solid.

Pro-active maintenance addresses the reliability. My wife's Volvo XC is at 220,000 and is driven every day. No worries. My 1990 4 Runner, with 280,000 miles, is still driven every day by its new owner. Taking a car to 300,000 miles in the rust belt is hard. Anywhere else, it's a matter of owner care.

Pacem - you got a nice truck for an awesome price.

Well done!

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: pacem
I always thought a car like this should cost 1000/year or 1500 at meaning if I get 4 years out of, I am doing great.


You did well.

And I completely agree.

Others will point out the higher maintenance on a used car like this.

I'll point out the lower depreciation, the lack of interest, lower insurance, and lower taxes

 

[meep]

both are right. It's a lot of vehicle for the price, and that offsets the cost of maintenance. My boss only drives well-used tahoes. He's gone through a few of them. He's never been left stranded, but it's been close a couple of times. Oddly enough, there hasn't been a single transmission issue, even up into the 200,00+ range. However, it's usually engine electronics that put the final nail in it. Repeat problems that can't be traced - a misfire which over time develops into a struggling up hills or after bumps in the road which later develop into real loss of power. Rarely have we succeeded with the normal candidates; (plugs/wires/distrib-componenents, sensors) Sometimes you get lucky and find its a broken wire in a harness, or bent inside of a component. a couple of times it's not something we, or the best reputed electrics shop in town, could find. By then, switchgear, dash plastic, interior, are starting to flake out, and it becomes time to find another 5,000 tahoe. Oh, and A/C. I'd almost suggest when you have your first A/C part fail, you just replace the entire system; otherwise you'll be in yearly for the next component.

-m

 

[Bgallagher]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: CKN
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Read up on GM's early DOD, displacement on demand. First year was 2007 and there were problems with the lifters and such that disabled 4 cylinders going teats up in the early years. Lots of owners disabled DOD with a tune. At 160K you're either good to go, already fixed, or about to replace some valvetrain parts. Plain Jane is good at 9 years and high miles, less stuff to fix as it wears out.

Quote:
Any reason you couldn't squeeze out another 160k miles on it with normal maintenance?


Probably not.



Yep-it amazes me that there are so many on here that think motors are this durable-or the vehicle as a whole will be economical/convenient to maintain with 320,000 miles on the clock- when the expense becomes so great-or the reliability really comes in to question.

Yea-don't post the few, very few exceptions that are out there.


OK, CKN, I think you should re-read what was said. "No reason it CAN'T go another 160,000".

They disagree with you.

So do I.

Frame rust has killed every car that I've taken to high mileage. The engines and transmissions have always been solid.

Pro-active maintenance addresses the reliability. My wife's Volvo XC is at 220,000 and is driven every day. No worries. My 1990 4 Runner, with 280,000 miles, is still driven every day by its new owner. Taking a car to 300,000 miles in the rust belt is hard. Anywhere else, it's a matter of owner care.

Pacem - you got a nice truck for an awesome price.

Well done!


+1 I agree. Keep up with the maintenance you can easily get 300k depending on the vehicle. Those vehicles are solidly built. Rust should be you're only enemy.

 

[pacem]

Interesting points you make.

My previous DD was a 06 silverado I got at an auction - very rusty. It did last for 3 years before wrecked. 6.0L/4L80. 230K miles. The drivetrain was still just fine.

Was a thirsty engine. 12 mpg as the norm. It wasn't so much the engine as the fact it was a huge, heavy vehicle. I think that 6.0L would probably get better MPG installed in a subcompact.

I didn't check it out correctly when buying. It was so rusty that one U-haul place refused to rent me an auto-transport.

 

[Tahoe4Life]

Any service records on this Tahoe? My buddy bought a 2007 PPV Tahoe with 150K miles and managed to get the service history. It was serviced by fleet every 4K miles. He has no issues with it.

Your Tahoe looks great!!

 

[Indydriver]

Congrats. First and most importantly, you will love driving this vehicle. You will probably spend $1-2,000/ yr on maintainance and repairs. I bought a 2007 with only 53,000 miles on it in Aug of 2014. It now has 112,000 on it. Find a good shop you can trust. Get lifetime wheel balance, rotation and alignment. Watch for brake wear. Get the trans and 4WD system serviced. You can trust the OLM for your OCI. I'm getting about 8,000 miles between changes of full syn. This last change I went with a high mileage syn as I was burning a quart between changes. I've had really good luck with Bridgestone Alenza Plus tires which have an 80,000 mile warranty...which probably means your next set will be prorated.

I am not a fan of cylinder deactivation schemes (I am party to the Honda class action on their VCM V6), BUT, if ever it made sense, this is the vehicle to use it on. It activates seamlessly which is nice. There is a setting on the dash where you can watch it if you like. I get 15-16 in mixed around town driving and 19-20 on the highway-on regular gas. Not bad. But the main thing is, once you get things running right, these things are a real pleasure to drive.

 

[HM12460]

It amazes me how the Tahoe/Yukon/Suburban hold their value.