Happened to be browsing Suburbans and related GM trucks out of curiosity (since my neighbor has two of them), and the local CL has dozens of them in the 99-01 year range for practically nothing....$2000-4000 all seemingly in good condition, running, inspected, etc.
So just curious: why are they so cheap in good condition? Is there a fatal flaw to them at high miles, are they maintenance bitches? Or do people just dump them cheap because of fuel prices?
My guess is fuel consumption mainly.
Fuel is the big one. I can get a 2003ish Excursion for that cash for the exact same reason, as long as I want a gas engine.
MPG.
I got an 04 2wd Suburban local to me that was just up from TX with the seller. It was only $6k, and I believe it was so cheap because of the gas mileage, and locale. It seems all the sheeple around here are deathly afraid of 2wd vehicles. It was rust free, by the way, and mostly still is 2 years later.
irish44j wrote: So just curious: why are they so cheap in good condition? Is there a fatal flaw to them at high miles, are they maintenance bitches? Or do people just dump them cheap because of fuel prices?
People who want big luxury SUVs buy new big luxury SUVs.
People who want trucks buy pickups, new or used.
Compare and contrast the Tahoe/Suburban prices to the prices of pickups from the same timeframe, and bear in mind that they are pretty much mechanically and electrically identical save for a few areas that are inconsequential as far as failure is concerned.
Keep in mind that 99s are one body style and 00-01 are the first of the new body style.
I really wanted to buy an 01-04 Yukon Denali and couldnt find any that were not ragged out under 15k. I ended up with an 02 Powerstroke F250 Crew Cab for less money than a nice Denali. Maybe thats Wisconsin in the fall.
I think the 'bazillion of them' aspect is as much a factor as the MPGs. It's the same reason older Caravans are ludicrously cheap.
Also, who wants a 2wd SUV? And considering the models you speak of are exactly the same as the trucks without the utility of a truck, I think it speaks for themselves.
Price out avalanches! A 2004 crew cab gm will be almost double the money versus an avalanche of comparable everything.
HiTempguy wrote: Also, who wants a 2wd SUV? And considering the models you speak of are exactly the same as the trucks without the utility of a truck, I think it speaks for themselves. Price out avalanches! A 2004 crew cab gm will be almost double the money versus an avalanche of comparable everything.
"in theory" this would just be for lugging the chump/lemons car up and down the east coast, rather than beat up my (wife's) low-miles V6 4Runner. So 2WD isn't an issue (in fact, it's a plus), and a fully enclosed cargo area is preferable to a pickup for security and weatherproofing.
But really it was just an inquiry out of curiosity. Since the racecar is owned by someone else, I'll leave it up to them to figure out towing (I towed to the last race with my 4Runner, but don't want to tow it 600 miles to Atlanta with that since it's our "family vehicle" and I don't want to put the wear and tear on the tranny).
they're not cheap here.
expeditions and durangos on the other hand....
quality is pretty low too. some guy wrote a book about it but I can't remember the name of it....
Around here you can buy two Suburbans for the price of an Avalanche.
oldopelguy wrote: Around here you can buy two Suburbans for the price of an Avalanche.
same here... the cheapest avalanche I can find on the houston CL is almost 5k for a 2k3... 175k miles for that I could almost buy 3 late mid/late 90's suburbans, or almost 2 2k+... for 2/3 that I could get a 2k+ 2500
i've considered one off and on for a while... you can find some good deals on them for what they are... but then I recall that my old 6.2 diesel only got 18mpg... and the gas isn't going to manage that :-/
for a cheap tow vehicle i've read that the '99 is the one you want... old SBC 350cid... that being said I towed with a friends early 2k 1500 and even with the million pound uhaul trailer behind it towed like nothing was behind me... sure they don't have quite the utility of a "real" truck but for a grassroots tow truck it seems like a great way to go, more nicely appointed inside usually than a similar pickup but you get the advantage of cheap parts thanks to GM building millions of em... the enclosed back end makes hauling gear security a lot easier, I think the dark tint was standard so even more security in hiding what you've got out back... also i know on my 80's model we would pull the rear bench seat out and put it and have the most comfy seat at picnics, parades and wherever else we took that thing... if I needed a tow vehicle I'd jump at the suburban.
donalson wrote: for a cheap tow vehicle i've read that the 454 big block is the one you want...
FTFY
Kenny_McCormic wrote:donalson wrote: for a cheap tow vehicle i've read that the 454 big block is the one you want...FTFY
er ya the 2500 if you plan to only tow with it and don't mind consistent single digit mpg... but for the 1500 models... as I understand it the 350sbc is better than the 5.3l in the 2k+ models
How is a 350 Vortec better than a 5.3 LS motor?
as I understand it... where the torque is
my experience is that the 5.3 is a better choice than a 350 for towing- as long as it's a Z71 that has the 3.73 gears.. the 99 and up trucks are just all around better in every way than the earlier models, except for fuel economy.. if that's the primary consideration, then i'd get a 95ish model with the bulletproof and stupid simple TBI 350..
The 5.7 might peak out earlier and higher, but its done and sounds like its about to baysplode at 5000 rpm. The 5.3 OTOH, I'd bet has a much flatter curve, more area underneath, and they don't protest to revving up.
Seems like you can get a lot of the stuff you get from a Suburban from a Trailblazer. Better mileage, smaller, good engine choices even the base 6.
Prices up here in Ma are CHEAP!
In 98 the suburban still had the spare topside with a huge 42gal tank below. Great for long distance towing. A 500-600 mile stint is possible and comfortable when you're driving a big leather sofa.
Also consider that many of the large SUV's are purchased for the tax implications as well as other considerations which means that after taking the quick depreciation, the OP wants to flip the vehicle and move on. Probably not something most of us consider but the rich are different. Factor in lease turn-ins and the sheer number of 'Burbs and its variations that GM sold and you have a lot of light duty SUV's on the market.
Kenny_McCormic wrote: 1. They built about a zillion of them. 2. They drink fuel like it still costs $1.27/gallon
QFT
You'll need to log in to post.
