2017 Tahoe Premier vs Yukon Denali---which would you buy and why?

[JayceeP]

Yeah for sure. The 6.2 in the Denali would be a pleasure to drive but it just seems hard to swallow alwhen you can get so much out of a 3.5 lol. Don't get me wrong though, V8 rumble is always soothing.

 

[15YUKON]

Yeah for sure. The 6.2 in the Denali would be a pleasure to drive but it just seems hard to swallow alwhen you can get so much out of a 3.5 lol. Don't get me wrong though, V8 rumble is always soothing.

It would be hard for me to swallow having a tiny motor of 3.5 liter displacement that eats more gas than a huge 6.2. It’s crazy to think our engines that are DOUBLE in size are more fuel efficient.

 

[JayceeP]

It would be hard for me to swallow having a tiny motor of 3.5 liter displacement that eats more gas than a huge 6.2. It’s crazy to think our engines that are DOUBLE in size are more fuel efficient.

How do you figure? TheF150 and new Gen Expedition both have better fuel ratings and the Expedition can tow more than the Yukon. A 15% difference in fuel consumption is material and you also have to consider the added cost of premium gas in the 6.2. So really, you're paying more for less I guess.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=37518&id=37693&id=38278&id=39638

 

[cardude2000]

It would be hard for me to swallow having a tiny motor of 3.5 liter displacement that eats more gas than a huge 6.2. It’s crazy to think our engines that are DOUBLE in size are more fuel efficient.

Luckily you won’t have to swallow since that’s not true.

The expy has more HP, more torque, weighs less, tows more and gets better MPG.

 

[jeffbco]

It would be hard for me to swallow having a tiny motor of 3.5 liter displacement that eats more gas than a huge 6.2. It’s crazy to think our engines that are DOUBLE in size are more fuel efficient.

Does this post constitute “fake news”?

 

[15YUKON]

Does this post constitute “fake news”?

Nope. I’m talking current ratings not for the 2018. I know the expy is a good truck you don’t have to tell me. The current Expeditions ratings are 15/19 mine is 15/22. Everyone I know with the 3.5 puts in premium fuel anyway because that motor runs better on it. If you drive that engine hard you get way below epa ratings because the boosted state, not the case here. I think a large naturally apirat d engine lasts longer. Simplicity=Longevity.

 

[15YUKON]

By no means will I boycott ecoboost I will be happy to test drive one and check them out

 

[AZCreeker]

Part of me just doesn't know if I would feel satisfied driving a 6 cylinder turbo toy hauler.
I've owned several turbo and supercharged vehicles. But a 6 cylinder turbo truck...just lifeless.
A truck is supposed to be loud and raunchy and just sound like it tows.

Part of me agree on the sound, that's a bit of a reason why we get these monsters rather than luxury crossovers.
I keep being amazed how quiet our suburban is exhaust wise, I am often tempted to just put a 18" magnaflow in it to just give it a little tone.

I have driven bunch of very much alive v6 back in the days, mostly Europeans ones. but a modern direct injected v6 with turbo is just going to sound a bit boring compared to a nice naturally aspired v8.
For example, I heard a brand new Raptor, which I really like in a guilty pleasure sort of way, and it had a magnaflow on it. Sounded terrible.
The only way to make them sound nice is to pump up fake sound in the cabin as they are doing, maybe the exhaust system of the future will be updated sound composer trough software!

 

[cardude2000]

Nope. I’m talking current ratings not for the 2018. I owned an 07 Expedition with the 5.4 They are great trucks you don’t have to tell me. They haul a lot and are a lot simpler with less to break. Our expys had less issues in ten years of ownership than the GM units by far. The current Expeditions ratings are 15/19 mine is 15/22. Everyone I know with the 3.5 puts in premium fuel anyway because that motor runs better on it. If you drive that engine hard you get way below eoa ratings because the boosted state, not the case here. Not sure about the GM units but Ford has had many 6.2 engines break the 400,000 mile mark on an original drivetrain good luck ever getting an ecoboost to come even to half of that life expectancy. I think if the ecoboost was so reliable, the 6.2 wouldn’t be the engine in their HD trucks. Simplicity=Longevity. And for someone like me who like to run trucks a good long time that’s of importance.

Comparing a 10-year-old vehicle to the latest generation of ‘just released’ expeditions may not constitute fake news, but its not particularly relevant.

FWIW, my 6.2 doesn’t get anywhere near it’s listed MPG when I drive it hard either.

Your point about longevity of the engines is certainly an interesting one. I’d love to see the data around those numbers.

 

[Anon2015]

Comparing a 10-year-old vehicle to the latest generation of ‘just released’ expeditions may not constitute fake news, but its not particularly relevant.

FWIW, my 6.2 doesn’t get anywhere near it’s listed MPG when I drive it hard either.

Your point about longevity of the engines is certainly an interesting one. I’d love to see the data around those numbers.

I doubt you'll get those numbers...not in the manufacturer's best interest. Consider turbos (even with intercoolers) are very hot and the smaller engine must work much harder (and hotter). I suspect we'll start seeing numbers in three years and my guess (experience with turbo car and airplane engines) is the picture won't be pretty. Equally to the point, turbos are expensive to replace.