RE: Attention Suburban Owners...

MattH · Sep 28, 2003, 07:05 PM

I am contemplating on making the plunge and getting a GMC or Chevy Suburban. I m thinking aroung 1996 or 97 probably in the 90k plus mile range. Do any of you experienced Colossus of Roads drivers have any info on what to look for in one of these monsters.

I appreciate your helpful insight.

wynot · Apr 07, 2003, 02:48 PM

MattHI don t know how prevalent it is, but my Tahoe/Yukon group is talking about a high failure incidence on the 95-96 models with 460LE tranny. It appears to be primarily in those years, but may be a larger span.

The group is Tahoe_Yukon@yahoogroups.com.

Same drivetrain as the Suburbans.

Papaso · Apr 07, 2003, 03:06 PM

MattHHi Matt,
First let me say that I love my Suburban, and I wouldn t be without it. This is my third my first was a 1967 I gave it to a friend back in 1982. My next was a 1994 which was totalled in a rear end collision and I believe it saved my life and the lives of the three people in the car in front of me. The truck behind me hit me going about 50 miles per hour the impact was so great it actually buckled the roof.
The car in front of me was a Honda Prelude can you imagine if my truck wasn t there to take the impact. I have found no inherent problem other than poor gas mileage. The 1999 has much better steering than any of the previous years, I do go through brakes but I m always towing something my boat trailer has no brakes and it s tough on the trucks. Towing the POPUP is a breeze I sometimes forget it s back there, I set the cruise control at 75 and she just cruises. I get about 11 miles per gallon weather I m towing or not, I have the 454 with the 3.73 rear and 4X4 and it is right at 90,000 miles. Best vehicle I ve ever owned.
HAPPY CAMPING

notrailends · Apr 07, 2003, 06:49 PM

MattHIf it has rear drum brakes it does not stop as well
and you may go through brakes faster.It also depends on
what kind of driver you are. My boss had one and he went
through brakes fast.But he also has a lead foot.
Good Luck

Kelly · Apr 07, 2003, 09:05 PM

MattH[font=" comic sans ms" ]We bought our burb (used) 3 years ago when number 4 was coming along ~ just couldn t make that leap to a minivan. I can t imagine driving anything else ~ when hauling kids around. I love the room ~ both for passengers and cargo. There isn t anything else out there that can match the cargo space, IMHO. It pulls the PU like there s nothing back there. We have the 1/2 ton, 4x4 with a towing package. We average 12-13 mpg. It s a 1997 model with about 63,000 miles on it.

I don t know that I can offer you much advice on what to look for. We decided before we started looking how much we were willing to pay, how old we would accept and how many miles we were willing to take. Fortunately we were realistic in all of those things and had a few to choose from.

The downside is ~ it s HUGE! It s a PITA to park and maneuver in city traffic (fortunately we don t live in the city [

]) Given the choice if I don t have all the kids with me ~ I ll load up the other truck and take that.

Overall ~ I love it! and it s been a very good choice for our family. Feel free to email me if I can answer any specific questions.[/font]

goose · Apr 07, 2003, 09:13 PM

MattH
[font=" Times New Roman" ] Here s my helpful insight:
Go buy one. You won t regret it.

You re welcome. [/font]

wynot · Apr 08, 2003, 02:06 PM

notrailends

QuoteIf it has rear drum brakes it does not stop as well
and you may go through brakes faster.It also depends on
what kind of driver you are. My boss had one and he went
through brakes fast.But he also has a lead foot.

Not to totally disagree, but I think you would be closer on the lead foot comment for wearing out brakes than brake type.

Drum brakes are not inherently worse at stopping in normal usage than disc brakes, IF (big if) they are kept adjusted properly. In fact, you probably couldn t tell which braking setup you had if they were correctly adjusted. *Power 4 wheel drum brakes excluded!!** Most self-adjustment mechanisms don t work that well, if at all. Assuming people do those things which cause self adjustment (stopping backwards hard occasionally, or using the parking brake routinely.)

Disc brakes do better at dissapating heat quicker. Are usually faster to dry off when wet (but also more likely to get wet faster). Disc brakes inherent advantages are cooling (less fade), ease of changing pads and the natural adjustment relative to the rotor.

Papaso · Apr 08, 2003, 04:46 PM

MattHJust a little fact I go through front disc brakes on a 3 to 1 ratio to the rear drum brakes. I am heavy footed and do drive hard, but I do not abuse. I simply use my vehicles to their maximum potential. [

]
HAPPY CAMPING

CAPEd CODger · Apr 08, 2003, 08:12 PM

MattHMy opinion is that a Suburban or Tahoe would make for an excellent tow vehicle for almost anything you d want to tow. I am a little confused at the mileage you said you were looking for. Just seems a little high to me. I guess it would be less expensive?
I wish I could afford one. For the time being, I ll stick with my Mini-Van.

Gamecock Camper · Apr 08, 2003, 11:48 PM

MattHThe DW is on her second Tahoe (03) and I have a Suburban (02). The gas mileage is not that great (14 to 16 on the Tahoe and 12 on the Suburban), but other than that I ve had absolutely no complaints at all. The Tahoe is a little more fun to drive, but the Suburban has a longer wheelbase and a better highway ride. Even though I never thought I d own an American vehicle (Hondas before that), I have never regretted it. My BMW convertible (325ic) is actually better on gas and more fun to drive, but I am not about to put a hitch on it for camping.....

wynot · Apr 09, 2003, 09:06 AM

Papaso

QuoteJust a little fact I go through front disc brakes on a 3 to 1 ratio to the rear drum brakes. I am heavy footed and do drive hard, but I do not abuse. I simply use my vehicles to their maximum potential.
HAPPY CAMPING

3 to 1 is actually low, not unusual though. Most cars are purchased and sold long before the rear brakes are replaced. It is easy to get well over 100,000 miles on a set of rear shoes or pads. Whereas front pads can wear out in 10,000-60,000 miles. I think my one car running 106,000 miles on the front pads was a little out of the norm.[

]

wynot · Apr 09, 2003, 09:08 AM

Gamecock Camper

QuoteThe DW is on her second Tahoe (03) and I have a Suburban (02). The gas mileage is not that great (14 to 16 on the Tahoe and 12 on the Suburban), but other than that I ve had absolutely no complaints at all. The Tahoe is a little more fun to drive, but the Suburban has a longer wheelbase and a better highway ride.

Hey, Stopher-

You coming to the Eastern Rally? Just head up 77 North...

We re coming back (home) to Cola after the Rally to visit friends.

The Robinsons · Apr 09, 2003, 10:08 AM

MattHI am on my second Suburban. The first, a 4x4 1999, was great except that the ride was a little rough. This was not my first 4x4 SUV, so I know to expect a different ride than a car, but I m talking ROUGH!!! It had a pretty good shimmy on the highway and tended to pull to the left - the dealer never did get it fixed quite right. A friend of mine s got a 98 Tahoe and her ride is pretty rough, too, but is in the process of getting her dealer to fix all the knocks and shakes. However, my 2003 (not a 4x4 - actually has a higher ground clearance, though) is SWEEEET! The ride is so nice - feels like I m in heaven![

] Something about the new body styles no longer being on the truck chassis. (That s getting into technical stuff that I don t have a clue on, though!) Like another post said, you just can t beat the cargo/people space - there s nothing even close as far as I can tell. My gas mileage isn t as bad as some as I ve seen on here - I went out of town last weekend and did lots of driving between several small towns and I averaged about 16 mpg. I do have a pretty heavy foot, so I was impressed. I say GO FOR IT! I d even take my 99 rough & tumble ride over anything I ve had before.

jackgoesthepopup · Apr 09, 2003, 10:19 PM

MattHI have owned a couple of them And my only complaint was the Electric clutchs on the front hubs. sometimes they would engage and somethimes not. Or they would not sometimes disengage. But I replaced them with manual hubs and i loved them both after that. When the truck pulls to one side sometimes it is the hub not disengageing from four wheel drive.

wynot · Apr 10, 2003, 10:39 AM

The Robinsons

QuoteHowever, my 2003 (not a 4x4 - actually has a higher ground clearance, though) is SWEEEET! The ride is so nice - feels like I m in heaven! Something about the new body styles no longer being on the truck chassis. (That s getting into technical stuff that I don t have a clue on, though!)

The new body styles are still on the same short or long bed pickup truck chassis (Tahoe or Suburban). A lot happened between the old and new body styles. A substantial loss of weight is the major one. Changed from leaf rear springs to coil, and also offered different ride packages as well as level control - at least on the 1500 series, 2500 is still old style). Suspension system in general is entirely different.

I predict that GM will offer independent rear suspension on these models in the next year or so - Ford/Lincoln got the jump on them in the Expedition and Navigator. Then you will have a even more heavenly ride, because the opposite wheel won t be trying to do the same thing that its mate is, on uneven terrain. Live rear axles are durable suckers, but they are not forgiving ride-wise.

News: