GM's ever-lower market share and persistent financial losses, combined with crushing retiree healthcare costs, have led many to prophesy that it will declare bankruptcy in the not too distant future. GM has responded that future products will save it.

The company has placed an especially large bet on a new generation of its large trucks. The production volume of these trucks necessitates an extremely high investment. In addition, early last year GM canceled the development of some highly anticipated rear-drive cars for Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Buick so it could shift more engineers to its large truck program and thus get them to market sooner.

Well, the first of these new trucks, the 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, is now at dealers. I took one for a test drive to learn if GM's hopes are well-placed.

Styling

The new exterior styling is a definite improvement, with cleaner bodysides and a bolder stance. The problem is that the general public does not notice clean; if anything, it sees clean designs as bland. I doubt that most people, when they see a new Tahoe on the road, will realize that they're looking at an all-new truck. If they notice it at all.

The Tahoe is available with up to 20-inch alloys this year. The example I drove was so-equipped, and even with these huge wheels a large gap remains between the top of the tire and the top edge of the wheel well. I don't mind this, but others will. The Cadillac version is available with 22's, and it's possible the openings were sized for these.

The interior styling has been changed far more substantially. The old instrument panel, with a cluttered arrangement of black trim plates within black trim plates, was clearly designed with the work truck owner rather than the Escalade owner in mind. The new instrument panel, in contrast, resembles that in GM's latest minivans and would not look out of place in a moderately upscale sedan. There's nothing flashy about it, just a good, clean design with precise panel fits and flush-mounted audio and HVAC control panels--no nasty trim plates. A healthy amount of fake wood is included, but it's reasonably convincing and fits the character of the truck.

Materials are generally hard plastic, but like the hard plastics in a Honda product they don't look cheap and feel solid rather than hollow. Inside panel fits appear even and tight, though an exploring fingertip will find that they aren't as flush-fitting as they appear, sticking out a bit in some places and sunken a bit in others. The interior in the Cadillac Escalade is only a bit nicer.

Exterior workmanship is more questionable. On the truck I drove the left rear door required a good shove to shut it completely. And on both this SUV and another in the showroom the rear doors stuck out a bit further than the D-pillar just aft of them. The exterior panel fits aren't nearly as nasty as those on GM's midsize SUVs, but they're also not as good as those on GM's new large cars.

Accommodations

Even with the driver's seat in its lowest position you sit well above the instrument panel, and thus a very commanding view to the front. Visibility to the rear is also pretty good for an SUV, as the rear seats don't get in the way. In comparison, the view rearward in a Jeep Commander or Volvo XC90 is far worse.

Of most concern, as in any SUV you cannot see children walking immediately behind the vehicle, as the bottom of the rear window is quite high off the ground. Rear obstacle detection is optional on the lower trim lines, standard on the others. You want it. Even better, a rearview camera is available with a navigation system on the upper trim lines.

As in past GM large trucks, headroom is well beyond adequate. You can be tall AND wear a ten-gallon hat.

The driver's seat itself is generously sized and very comfortable. It feels cushy, yet is shaped to provide good support. On the top trim lines, including the LT3 I drove, both front seats are fitted with four-way power lumbar adjustment. This is always a welcome feature, as you can adjust the vertical location as well as the size of the lumbar bulge. Lateral support is minimal, but this is sufficient for a full-size SUV. At least there is some lateral support; the seats in GM's midsize SUVs provide none.

The second row can be either a split bench or buckets. Either is comfortable. If the front seats are all the way back--which for most people won't be necessary--kneeroom is unexpectedly tight given the size of the vehicle. But the seat is a good height off the floor, so it provides a decent amount of thigh support.

The third row is also available in two-pass and three-pass forms. I don't get the former. You get a couple of cup holders and storage compartments by giving up the middle seating position. But I'm not seeing why the choice is either-or. Plenty of vehicles offer such functionality via a fold-away armrest. The Tahoe in the showroom combined the second-row captains chairs with the two-position third row. As I see it, this is way too large a vehicle to only carry six passengers.

Neither third row is comfortable for adults. Headroom is marginally acceptable, but the seat cushion sits right on the floor so your feet are nearly as high as your rear end. In other words, you'll have a very good view of your own knees. There is a better way. When Ford redesigned its Expedition for the 2003 model year, it fitted an independent rear suspension. This enabled it to lower the rear floor by about eight inches, and thus provide a third-row seat suitable for adults. In contrast, GM decided that an independent rear suspension was not worth its extra cost.

Chevrolet will likely argue that those wanting a roomy third row should buy the Suburban, which is essentially an extended Tahoe. But it shouldn't be necessary to buy such a huge vehicle to get a decent third row. As a people and moderate cargo hauler, a crossover like the Ford Freestyle is much more effective and versatile.

Getting into the third row ranks about average in difficulty. The second row seats tumble well out of the way. In upper trim lines they tumble at the push of a button. GM is aggressively touting this feature, but I'm not seeing a lot of value. The seat is easy to manually tumble, and even with the power release it must be manually returned to its upright position. At the current $425 price these aren't a good value. At around $200 they'd make more financial sense.

As in the last Tahoe, there isn't much cargo room behind the third row, and the third row does not fold into the floor. For maximum cargo volume you must remove these seats. The Expedition provides both more cargo volume and has seats the fold to form a flat floor.

A folding front passenger seat, as in the Ford Freestyle, would be nice, but is not offered.

On the Road

For the 2007 Tahoe, GM has revised its small-block V8 for what must be the millionth time. The 5.3-liter V8 now produces 320 peak horsepower, 25 more than last year, and runs on four cylinders in low-load conditions to save gas. Torque is up only five foot-pounds, though, indicating that midrange power remains about the same.

The engine does feel fairly powerful, and retains its traditional throaty sound. Some people will wish for less engine noise under acceleration. More will wish that thrust felt stronger below 20 MPH. The problem isn't the engine--it's the transmission. With just four gears, the ratios must be relatively tall and widely spaced. For the same reason, downshifting for more thrust at higher speeds can get you more engine roar than you bargained for. A six-speed automatic, due in the next year or two, should significantly improve both powertrain performance and fuel economy.

GM has been stressing that the new SUVs offer improved fuel economy. Well, for the 4WD Tahoe the EPA numbers have gone all the way from 15/19 to 15/21. Basically, it appears that deactivating four cylinders on the highway improves fuel economy about ten percent. Good, but I'm not sure it's worth all the bragging. In GM's defense, even the old Tahoe got best-in-class fuel economy. Owners of Fords, Toyotas, and Nissans tend to report significantly lower numbers, low teens instead of mid-teens.

Despite overly light steering and a fair amount of slop in the suspension, GM's previous large SUVS were very easy to pilot and generally felt smaller than they were. Competitors felt much more unwieldy. Still, the new truck handles much better. Though the steering continues to provide little in the way of feedback, it now has some heft to it and feels considerably more precise. Lean in turns, though still far from that of a sports car, has been reduced, and the rear end no longer sways disconcertingly in quick transitions. In general, the new SUV feels much more composed and planted on the road. It still feels like a large truck, and thus no competition for a good-handling midsize SUV like the Jeep Grand Cherokee or Nissan Pathfinder in this area, but a very car-like large truck.

Ride quality is iffier. Minor road imperfections induce some jitters. Nothing uncomfortable, but far from carpet-smooth. The 275/55R-20 low-profile tires fitted to the Tahoe I drove could be largely to blame. But they sure do look much nicer than the standard 17s. Larger road imperfections are nicely absorbed, and don't unsettle the chassis nearly as much as they did in the previous generation truck.

Engine, wind, and road noise levels are all moderate. Acceptable for a truck, but higher than those in a similarly-priced car.

Chevrolet Tahoe Price Comparisons and Pricing

The two most popular comparisons (base to base, without rebates, adjusted for feature differences):

GMC Yukon: $400 more at MSRP and invoice. When the two are similarly equipped the difference is smaller.

Ford Expedition: $2,400 more at MSRP, $1,500 more at invoice. But this is before rebates; that on the Ford is currently a huge $6,000.

Prices change frequently, and differences will vary based on feature level. To quickly generate these and other comparisons with the specific features you want, visit my Web site, www.truedelta.com. (It's the only site that provides true "apples-to-apples" price comparisons.)

TrueDelta's page for the Tahoe:

http://www.truedelta.com/models/Tahoe.php

Last Words

A test drive of the new 2007 Tahoe discovered substantial changes in two areas, the design of the instrument panel and handling. While very welcome, I'm disappointed that the Tahoe still comes up short in terms of third row comfort and cargo carrying versatility. Space efficiency hasn't improved a bit. Those seeking a comfortable third row will still be much happier with the Ford Expedition, especially after it receives an upgraded interior for the 2007 model year. Dodge's Durango lags both the new Chevrolet and Ford in terms of interior ambiance, but offers a third row slightly better than that in the Tahoe in a handier package.

More broadly, I don't see how the new SUVs will significantly improve GM's financial condition in the long run.

Sales should surge in the short term. I suspect there are many owners of the previous generation SUVs who will want to upgrade to the new one. Quite possibly many of these people have held onto their current vehicle longer than they would have, knowing that a new one was coming. High gas prices have been blamed for slow large SUV sales in recent months, but this could also have been a factor. Other GM SUV owners will trade a little earlier than they otherwise would have to get the improved truck. For these groups, the upgrades will be significant.

However, these changes aren't large enough to significantly expand the number of people who buy large SUVs. Those seeking a people and cargo hauler will be better served by a large crossover like the Ford Freestyle or Honda Pilot. GM has such vehicles on the way. The main advantage of the Tahoe over such vehicles is that it can tow two to three times as much--7,700 pounds with the 4.10 axles. But how many people need to tow a large boat or trailer?

The Tahoe is more capable of venturing off the pavement than a crossover, but the number of people who will use this capability is even smaller than those who will tow a three-ton object.

In addition, GM already has a very large share of the large SUV segment, I believe about 60 percent. There are only so many sales to steal from Ford, Toyota, and Nissan. So I don't see much of an uptick in GM's large SUV sales after the initial spike.

Instead, I'd expect GM to earn more per unit as people will no doubt pay a few thousand more for the improved new vehicle. Those seeking big discounts will now end up in a Ford, Toyota, or Nissan rather than a GM truck. This will improve GM's financial health, but saving the company might be a bit of a stretch. The extra two or three billion dollars a year (once the new pickups are also on sale) will be nice--but GM needs an extra ten billion a year to compete with Toyota long-term.

A Note on Chevrolet Tahoe Reliability

I cannot practically cover reliability within the context of this review. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've started collecting my own data. Results, once they are available, will be posted to my site, www.truedelta.com, with updates every three months.

Unlike other sources, TrueDelta will clearly identify what difference it will make if you buy a Tahoe rather than another vehicle by providing "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats (among others). You will be able to specify the number of years, annual miles, and types of repairs to include in Chevrolet Tahoe reliability comparisons.

Before I can report results, I need data on all cars--not just the RDX--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information. For non-participants, this access will cost $24.95.

For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.

A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.

If you're an Epinions member, and you want to receive an email when I post a new review, click here.

Some of my reviews of related vehicles:
Dodge Durango review
Ford Expedition review
GMC Yukon Denali review (2003)