Chevrolet Suburban

Year / Model Reviewed:
pre 1997 Chevrolet Suburban

Summary:
(pre 1997 Model) - Overall a good tow-vehicle. Has trouble passing emission inspection due to the big 454 engine.

Strengths:
The Suburban is a ""workhorse"". I tow a 30' Avion with very little effort. Ilike the 2 swinging doors on the rear. Comfortable to ride in especially on freeways and interstates.

Weaknesses:
Gas miliage is low 7-9 MPG and I have a Gearvendor Overdrive that was an add-on that functions intermittently. Emission inspections are a hassle.

Overall Rating
 1 of 5

Value Rating
 1 of 5

Used product for
More than 1 year

Visitors rate this review
5.00 of 5, 2.00 votes

Price Paid:  $51000.00 from Pohanka

Year / Model Reviewed:
2004 Chevy Suburban

Summary:
I bought a new suburban a year ago. IT's been bad since the beginning. In summary, the vehicle is suffering from an oil consumption problem, which is well documented, to have been in existence for quite some time. The attached support this claim. I will attempt to chronologically summarize the events over the last couple years, which relate to this issue. First, the vehicle was purchased new by the undersigned. Has been owned and operated by the undersigned for the entire period of time since new. Early on in the vehicles life I noticed what I considered excessive oil consumption. I attributed this to the fact that the vehicle was new, and perhaps the rings had not “seated”. While concerned, I was not alarmed, but I did try to informally track it to a small degree. Those results are below. I had planned on tracking this further to determine if “seating” was improving. Mileage Added Mileage between adds 6250 0.5 6829 2 579 7613 2 784 8151 1 538 8421 1 270 8973 1 552 9390 1 417 Qts used Avg miles/Qt. 3140 8.5 369.4118 9474 10482 1 1008 11735 2 1253 12200 2 465 Qts used Avg miles/Qt. 2726 5 545.2 Table I, oil consumption as monitored by owner. I seemingly confirmed a problem and my suspicions, and I am a busy quy, so the next documented data I have is from the dealership which I selected to perform the maintenance under warrantee. On 11/24/04 With 19618 miles on the vehicle I had it returned for service for excessive oil consumption. (It had been in previous to this at 19028 miles, but I have no records on hand which relate to this visit.) At 19618, the dealer noted that the vehicle consumed 1.1 Qt’s in 590 miles. The vehicle was thoroughly inspected, and “No external leaks were noted”. This basically confirmed my findings above (that the vehicle was burning oil to an excessive degree) to my satisfaction. A baseline is formed. I continued to monitor the consumption and have the following results: At 20059 miles the vehicle was returned to the dealer, which added 1.5 Qts. The dealer position: “It is stated that no-published info can be found relating to this concern”. (Please keep this in mind, as mysteriously published info appears later) Further to the problem: “TAC assistance was contacted and informed about #02-06-01-035” “Replaced intake manifold bolts and re-torqued.” Note 10 bolts replaced. (In essence, the problem was acknowledged and the intake manifold seal was claimed to be the problem. I thought it silly but played along) The technical advice was that oil was making its way into the intake ports/passages and eventually being burned with the fuel charge. At 20666 I added 2 Qts of oil. 600 miles or so and 2 Qts. At 21121 I added 1 Qt. At 21566 I added 1 Qt. At 22232 I returned to the dealer. The next item was to replace the intake manifold gaskets. This was performed as the next step, I worked with them and it was suggested I try this and monitor oil consumption. (Again, in essence, the problem was acknowledged and the intake manifold seal was claimed to be the problem.) At 22960 the vehicle was returned to the dealer again for oil consumption. The dealer noted it was 1 Qt low, I measured more but didn’t argue. Further diagnostics were preformed. A compression check was performed to check the quality of the ring seating. The compression test seemed to indicate good compression. But “oil was noted on all spark plugs”. All spark plugs were replaced. (Please note that I later document a much more extensive test, which is a better indicator of cylinder sealing: A leak-down compression test) Critical to note, the dealer Removed and reinstalled “valve seals”. Quite a bit more extensive effort involved than intake gaskets. (Again, the problem was acknowledged and the problem was addressed on the intake manifold as well as the valve stem seal replacement.) The next documented testing occurs at 29216 miles. At this point the dealer placed dye in the oil to trace the path to the intake manifold. The dealer documented dye in the intake ports for cylinders 2,4&1. The intake manifold was replaced (warpage concern); the intake bolts were replaced, as was the intake gasket. A rather extensive exercise as well. (Again, the problem was acknowledged and the intake manifold was replaced.) All along I doubt the effectiveness of any of this rework. At 34573 miles I return to the dealer. I expressed my concern that I am nearing the expiration of my warrantee and we still have not resolved the problem. I was assured by the service manager that the “problem is well documented and that IT WAS OBVIOUS IT WAS A EARLY ON DETECTED PROBLEM, and that GM would make good on the problem. At 34573 the dealer wanted to restart an oil-monitoring program to again qualify the consumption amount and suggested I ret

Strengths:
It's a shame GM will not fix a flawed product that is really a huge EPA problem.

Weaknesses:
Burns a quart of oil every 400 miles and GM claims its normal. NOw it is fouling a spark plug at 37000 miles

Price Paid:  $49000.00 from Ramp Chevrolet

Year / Model Reviewed:
2003 2500 LT Quadrasteer

Summary:
I love my truck! This is my third Suburban. My first was a '97 1500 LT, second '00 1500 LT, now an '03 2500 LT. The '97 was a little primitive with not much luxury in spite of the LT package. The '00 was fine with brakes that lasted well past 40K miles and adequate power. The '03 2500 with the 6.0L engine is a beast. I tow a horse trailer and when the quadrasteer came out, I had to have it. It makes towing a breeze and the truck handles like my Mercedes convertable. It has tremendous power with the 4.1 rear end. My kids love the DVD entertainment system and I enjoy the XM radio and the CD changer. On-star is nice but a little pricey after the introductory year. The personal calling is a nice feature, but also a little overpriced considering its just a cell phone connected by satellite. I would have liked a GPS but that is unavailable. Also, you can't get the DVD and sunroof together until the '04 model. With quadrasteer you get roof marker lights which eliminate the possibility of a sunroof. I guess the geniuses at GM can't figure how to run wires along the side of the roof.

Strengths:
Powerful, strong, excellent for towing. Great handling with quadrasteer. XM radio is a kick. I paid invoice - $300 + $3,000 rebate + $2,000 quadrasteer rebate

Weaknesses:
Gas guzzler. DO NOT BUY THIS CAR IF YOU DON'T NEED THE SIZE OR THE POWER.

Similar Products Used:
Land Rover, Chevrolet Suburban '97, '00.

Price Paid:  $39000.00 from Vandergriff Chevrole

Year / Model Reviewed:
2003 Chevrolet Suburban Z71

Summary:
Purchased this 04 Z71 in November of 03 and have put 50,000 miles on it in a year (even split hwy/city driving). This vehicle "is what it is", an effecient people mover capable of towing decent loads and more than average cargo. Have had some troubles of note - needed two front-end alignments, balky transmission transitions, but nothing to qualify this car as having sub-standard quality. Front captains chairs are very comfortable, mid row is adequate for adults, rear row is suitable for only children or midgets. Dashboard is functional (albeit a little bland) and controls are functional, but not superb. The Bose stereo is a plus, with the acoustically matched speakers and sub woofer. Leather is not what you'd expect in a 40,000 + car. Wife is the primary driver, she loves the safety and the "road profile" of the car - it's hard to miss. I'd recommend this vehicle to anyone with 3 or more children or a need to transport more than 5 people on a regular basis (I'd particularly recommend the Z71 package if you live in a colder climate). The 'burban can haul this load with luggage comfortably over long distances without the occupants committing suicide or homicide. If you don't have a need for this type of size - avoid this truck. Buy a Tahoe or an Expedition.

Strengths:
Passenger and Cargo Capacity. Unbeleivable amount of room behind the third row of seats. Decent power - not going to win any drag races but you will not be fearful entering traffic. Decent ride - Z71 package has stiffer ride due to gas-filled shocks, more truck like than the other trims available - Looks, nice looking full sized SUV, especially with the Z71 trim.

Weaknesses:
- Fuel economy (no kidding) - Suspect quality (although nothing major yet, I just have this feeling......) - Cheap interior (seats, plastic, dash) - Brakes, but everything is relative. This is a 7000 pound vehicle that is not designed to outbrake a Porche. I don't think people truly grasp that concept.

Overall Rating
 4 of 5

Value Rating
 5 of 5

Used product for
More than 1 year

Price Paid:  $41000.00 from Nesmith Chevy Claxto

Year / Model Reviewed:
2003 Chevy Suburban LT

Summary:
This is my second Sub. First was a '96. Had two alternators go out within the first 50k, and the transmission went out at 76k. Other than that I loved that truck. Solid, handled well, loaded. Oh, the air worked great for the passenger, but not so great for the driver. This Sub? Even better. No mechanical issues in 27k. Split air- freezes driver equally. Handles even better. Seats are much more comfortable- especially passengers seat. Truly spacious, truly comfortable, handles beautifully. And I'm someone who uses that truck full of folks AND gear. But it's gone. Totalled. I had it completely full of equipment and 4 passengers. At 74mph on a highway we collided with another car hard, we spun 180left into the retainer wall- full on flat hit to the passenger side- kept spinning doing another 180 and stopped just dead of hitting the same car again, which has spun and rolled. Major full on collision. The results? I had around 1500 lbs of equipment in the back and 4 passengers. Out of all of that, there was nearly complete structural integrity to the passenger cabin. Out of 4 passengers, there were only minor injuries, mostly related to the seatbelts- blunt chest trauma, back trauma. We are all around and about because the Suburban didn't roll. 74mph and it could have rolled. It didn't. And after hitting the other vehicle and slamming into the concrete retainer wall, a window was smashed on the passenger side, but the truck kept us alive. That's a big deal. Thank God, the other passengers in the vehicle that rolled were able to get out of their vehicle and walk around. After several weeks of getting my nerve back, I just put a deposit on a 2004 yesterday. There are other vehicles I'd like to own, but for the size I need, the fact that I often carry 3 or 4 folks with me, with tons of gear, this vehicle is my safest option. The manufacturer incentives on this next 2004 will save me nearly 7k. Amazing.

Strengths:
Safe. Rugged. Big. Cavernous with big seats- just like ones in First Class Jets. Comfortable. Honest. This is an established vehicle- proven brand - with more features for the dollar than most any on the market. It's safe. It's a truck.

Weaknesses:
It's a truck. I'd rather be driving a smaller sexier more stylish SUV- Acura MDX, a Sequoia, a Honda Pilot, a Tourag- what a ride. The Sub's dash and interior while cavernous, should have improved and been updated by now. I'm tired of the interior look, and they absolutely should have had factory GPS navigation rolled out by 2004 - it would have been soooooo easy. That was a costly mistake in my opinion. A modest improvement in gas mileage would have been in order.

Similar Products Used:
Just Suburbans.