Nice. That is a lot of choices. You can get this 6.2L V8 if you want power, or you can get the Two-mode hybrid if you want REALLY GOOD (for an full-size SUV) fuel economy.

I never appreciated the size of the market for horse or boat towing. I reckon that was missing from Chevy line-up.

This is a great idea on behalf of Chevrolet. Hopefully they’ll offer this engine in the Suburban. Now there’ll be about no reason for Chevy to lose sales to the Yukon (ugly as hell, in my opinion).

Can GM get any dumber? They need to focus on more fuel efficient engines and vehicles, not less. Transparently foolish moves like this are what is going to guarantee the death of GM.

There it is! There’s the environmentalist jargon. Madcapp and those that follow: explain why your armchair corporate management will save GM.

SAD!!

Porsche gets 200! more horses out of a comparable v8 (4.8L) and uses less fuel doing so. (and the Cayenne will do 275km/h). Don’t wanne know the top speed of the Tahoe)

Macapp – you are an idiot..did you read my first post? Not that I expect you to read what I have to say, but you should, by now, know about the TWO MODE hybrid system GM has put on their GMT-900s

Good move by Chevrolet, but if I were Chevrolet I would seriously consider a large, more powerful V-6. I understand most people would consider a 6 cylinder underpowered in the Tahoe, but part of that is because of the impression the large 4 liter V-6’s from Ford, Chrysler, GM and Toyota offered for a long time, and I know how they feel. 200hp from a totally inefficient engine that didn’t get much better fuel economy than the small V-8 offerings.

But what I would consider a real step ahead is a large V-6, 3.8-4.2 liters like the older and current ones, but much more refined (the one Pontiac uses hasn’t been seriously updated or changed for 15+ years). Maybe a small turbo-charger, aluminum cylinder heads, seriously updated electronics, variable valve timing or other such technologies could seriously put a V-6 on lot’s of peoples lists, including mine. And even better yet, a diesel engine. I can imagine Chevrolet, Ford or Chrysler pulling out 300 horsepower and 300 ft-ib’s of torque out of their current large V-6’s, or a good 350 ft-ibs of torque from a diesel 6 cylinder, and get an edge in price and economy wars. Actually, I would consider those figures fairly mild for such a large engine, the Big Three just need to invest into their large engines like Toyota and Honda have with their small engines.

Bryce- The Yukon’s frontal area is HUGE. That really turned me off from the product, it doesn’t have a lot in the front to distract you from the literal wall your facing. The Tahoe’s a little better, but I’m not so sure if they should have gone with the softer design. I think it looks good, better than Toyota’s bubble-ish design.

Nice. Gm choking the planet with this uneconomical POS excuse of an engine

I see partly why they did this though, to better compete with Toyota’s V-8.

Just to mention, whoever is stupid enough to accuse me of being an “enviromentalist juggernaut” for me saying Chevrolet should spend some time and seriously invest in their V-6 should consider that I don’t need a V-8 all the time; I need a powerful engine that will tow a small trailer and be a people hauler. They should also consider that by doing so cost will go down, and reliability may go up.

Bryce you retard, it has nothing to do with the environment, I didn’t even mention the environment you stupid republican ****stick. Its about economics. Nobody wants LESS economical vehicles in light of volatile energy prices. It another example of taking the company in the wrong direction and being out of touch with reality. I can’t believe how stupid you were to bring up the environment when nobody mentioned it, keep your piehole shut so you don’t let anybody else know how much of a fool you are.

Macten, do you have any idea at all about cars, or physics for that matter. Obivouly a sports car is going to get better mileage then an SUV, considering that the SUV is probably close to twice its mass. Also, do a little research, Chevy’s small block V-8 is one of the most fuel efficient engine for its power output.

I think LLN ate my comment again.

Hahaha, gotta love the import humpers bashing this while Toyota has released a ridiculous amount of new V8 models over the last two years. Then they will say “OMG U DONT CRITICIZE GM FOR IT”, even though it’s Toyota trying to delude people into believing their “green” image, not anyone else.

This 6.2L V8 in all its forms is one of the most badass engines ever made. Lots of power without ridiculous BMW redlines, and more economy than Toyota. Between this, the 6.0L hybrid, and the ever-reliable 5.3L, what more do you need?

For the smaller SUVs/CUVs, GM should develop a combination of the two-mode hybrid system and the 3.6L DOHC V6.

Toyota has 2 V8’s in US: 4.7L & 5.7L. I don’t believe they need either and agree with Madcap: considering the cost of the gasoline more economical engines make sense. GM would be much wiser in producing more Duramax diesels and dropping those into bays. Those trucks are not cheap so cost of diesel will not hurt them, yet it has more torque and towing capacity then ANY gasoline engine along with 25% less fuel consumption.
In it’s complete lack of wisdom GM will not do this and will let Toyota to grab a lead in diesels as well. At this moment GM has technology that competition doesn’t and they are not using it.

If I can get my response to Madcapp to post, I will. In the meantime, autonut, GM is developing a 4.5L V8 ‘baby’ Duramax for use in Silverado 1500s. Although I don’t remember, I believe that there are rumors about it being transplanted into GMT-900 SUVs.

I have this motor in our Denali. It gets absolutely abysmal gas mileage. Worse than the previous generation Denali with the 4 spd! This is stupid. Ha!

So now how is the Denali/Slade different then a loaded Tahoe??–Styling?–Brand?–Not enough! And to what jayjc08, said about a large V6 Tahoe. The 6.0L V8 shortened with a balance shaft would make a GREAT 4.5L 90 degree V6 that could put out 300HP properly tuned. And that would make a super base V6 for the pickups also.

This is a good choice, very nice for towing while also having room for friends and family. Living in the pacific northwest every other vehicle on the road is a large suv or truck….

why would GM be stupid for launching this engine in the Tahoe when the new Sequoia has 381hp? as for the stupid argument that GM should be investing in fuel economy instead of this please note the Tahoe Hybrid gets better mileage than any gas guzzling Armada, Pilot, 4Runner, PAthfinder or Sequoia. Do you people read anything before commenting? And diesels are very expensive so its not like you can simply swap diesels for gas V8s and not charge customers the difference. The few diesel trucks that GM sells have a steep price premium over their V8 counterparts.

Offer it with dual-mode hybrid and cylinder deactivation. The real deal, however, is the new six-speed transmission. That will make a much bigger impact on everyday driveability and mileage.

Mapcapp – I pretty much explained it to you, but you focused on Bryce’s post. You are right, you did not mention the environment, and neither did I when I criticized you. You are flat out wrong to think that people don’t want more powerful engines. Some need it because they want more power; to tow a boat easier or for whatever other reason. And for those that want the more economical engine can choose GM’s Two Mode hybrid. Ever thought of that?

Import suck-ups and apologists – such a preposterous argument. There is an industry wide race (that means everywhere) for more horse power AND for more efficient engines of many types. It’s not an either/or business – nor should it be. It’s about covering all the needs of the customer and competing in the market place that actually exists – not a market place in your wide-eyed imagination. And as forces change then offerings will change – but I hope for all of us – it will always include choices.

Good job GM. I don’t know why anybody would think it’s not a smart move. Living here in Minnesota, there are quite a few families that have campers, trailers, boats and snowmobiles and need that extra power to haul it around AND their families. It makes total sense. It’s not like GM is making it a standard engine. It’s an option…jeeze. Obviously those that are purchasing it know that it will have a lower fuel economy but it’s just unevoidable at this time.

67_L-88, How can you question someone’s knowledge of cars while callilng a Porsche Cayenne a sports car?

GM (if smart) would offer ONE (1) ginormous engine for people to NEED to tow.

GM would also offer 2 gas saving option engines, one being a 6 cylinder diesel.

GM could offer a 2-speed overdrive unit so the driver (or computer) could select tow mode or economy mode.

BUT…..GM is deaf like Ford, and cares nothing about what we the public thinks or wants. They just stuff another bigger engine into a $3/gallon economy.

I’d rather see a Diesel in there, but whatever…

Yea, a 5000lb+ truck with a small engine that’s always in overdrive in non-towing conditions. That’ll work. What a stupid idea.

not offer a diesel?

This article is about 2008 powertrain options, people. The diesel is in development.

WHERE IS THE DIESEL!!!! Come on GM…lead don’t follow.

last month you butt pluggers were complaining about no 6 speed, well combine the l;arger engine with the 6 speed and you probably improve your fuel economy.

SJ79- Part of the reason why diesels are so expensive (note: In America) is partly because all they use them in is large, cumbersome trucks. Do you understand the extra stress the transmission, suspension and other parts have to take due to both the weight, and the power of that diesel engine? It’s not so much the diesel technology itself, it’s the fact that everything has to be “beefed” up to handle all that extra power.

Take a small diesel in the United States (or atleast was in the United States, taken out last year), the Volkswagen Jetta. I think the base price was something around $20,000. Not bad, considering it gets 40 miles to the gallon, much more sporty and costs less than a Prius (there’s always the wagon if you want as much space).

CA36GTP- Do you have to make it sound so negative? I would safely say you could level weight to 5000 ibs (currently the base version weighs 5265 ibs, curb weight). With the right tuning, nothing anymore expensive than the current V-8 and nothing high powered or really performance oriented, I bet you could get 300 hp and 300 ft ibs-of-torque out of GM’s 3.8 or past 4.2 liter V6’s. A diesel around the same size could very well get 350 ft ibs-of-torque (that’s a mild figure, considering most diesels get more than 100 ibs-of-torque per liter) also, which both of those figures are very good compared to GM’s current 8 cylinders. Ford could very well do the same thing with their Cologne 6 cylinders.

You who criticize this move are dumb. Is this the best thing they could have done to these trucks, no it isnt. But its a good move and a must need. Chevy has to offer as much power as Toyota does if not more. That is just the market, this is agreat engine and tranny combo. Is it more important that they get a diesel in here? Hell yeah and they are in developement, this 6.2 is an engine already to go sitting in the stable.

Give them props for putting out the hybrid. And it tows. In So Cal everybody has toys and most people drive alot of miles and deal with traffic on freeways sitting in shadow of giant semi driven by redneck. Doing that in a Prius make some people crap their pants. The tahoe hybrid is best all around vehicle for these people in US market now.

Just put in a diesel? Can you pay the premium?
Diesel option on Chevy 2500 is $7600.00 the Ford is similar and the Cummins is even more, like $8100.

Jayjc08: I was referring more to the idiotic idea by Get Real of a two-speed overdrive than engine choices. Personally, I’m still waiting for GM to wake up and make hybrid and turbo variants of the 3.6L, with tunes for both truck and passenger car applications.

Damn, you got me got handling, i was in a hurry and just read porsche. Feel pretty stupid right now.

CA36GTP- That would be all that bad of an idea, but I don’t know about in the Tahoe/Suburban. I’d think to large for the 3.6 liter. It would be nice though in the Trailblazer.

SwerveEarly- Reread my comment again. Not all diesels have to have that large of a premium, much of that premium goes towards strengthening torsional parts.

just noticed my mistake
*that wouldn’t be all that bad of an idea

Reality is GM continues to stuff money into a product with a shrinking market share.

Love trucks or not……and I hate FWD cars.

Reality is ugly when it bites you in the butt.

Bring on the diesels.
The horsepower war is ridiculous, when’s enough just that, enough.
Anyone remember a few years ago when 275 hp’s was considered plenty good enough?

Like a Rock.

Get Real: I don’t think I’ll see $3 gas again.

CA36GTP: “I’m still waiting for GM to wake up and make hybrid and turbo variants of the 3.6L, with tunes for both truck and passenger-car applications.”
That’s an intriguing idea.

lamboz get a life: Look up the HP rating on some ’60s muscle cars.