Chevy says its Suburban has been redesigned for 2021. The big takeaway, though, is a new powerplant option: a 3.0-liter, inline-six Duramax turbodiesel.
Rated for 277 horsepower and 460 lb.-ft. of torque (the same amount of torque as the 6.2-liter gas V8), the diesel six comes mated a 10-speed automatic transmission.
How well does the new diesel-powered Suburban fair in the real world? Keep reading to find out.
27mpg is very impressive.
That is truly amazing. Off to see if this drivetrain is available in a van.
Edit: not yet. Maybe in time.
Run_Away said:27mpg is very impressive.
I got the truck a couple days before I left on the trip, so I used it for all my pre-trip errands. I reset the mileage data when I got it, and I was pretty surprised when I first set out that it was hovering in the high-20s. "It'll go down as I get into stop-and-go or hit a few more lights" I figured.
But it never did.
Pretty insane that this thing basically gets the same average fuel economy as my wife's Mazda CX-5.
I'm impressed the diesel engine is available at base model trim level. Usually you have to add a ton of stupid luxury extras to get an oil burner.
Two reactions:
1. The dashboard design in the Hoeburban is sooooo vastly superior to the dash design in the GM trucks.
2. My dearly departed '76 Suburbans had 144 cubic feet of interior space and fold flat 2nd row seats, - the same as this one, but in a much smaller package. I know: safety, safety, blah, blah, blah, but these things are just egregiously huge.
Yeah, as the ex owner of a diesel Suburban, I'll pass.
As a resident of South Carolina with quite literally zero emissions testing or vehicle inspections, it is rather tempting to grab one of these and immediately rip out all emissions devices sans the cats. Once that's done...
Reliable? Check. Stylish? Check. Comfortable? Check. Fits all the kids? Check. Tows a bass boat and a car trailer? Check. Good gas mileage? Check. $75000? Crap. And it goes back to merely being a temptation.
Number1Gaza said:$75000? Crap.
Yeah, I hear you on this one. But, to be fair, I'm not mad at Chevy for pricing it there, more just befuddled by a world where $75000 SUVs and pickups live and flourish and fly off of dealer showrooms as fast as they can build them.
In reply to JG Pasterjak :
Once I bought a new Chevrolet S10 Blazer and an old coot that was friends with the family asked me what I paid......$19,500.
Shoot, he says. I paid less for my first house.
Won't be long where I'm the old coot. $90,000? I paid less.....
A 1999 diesel suburban cost $30,423 or $49,846 in today's money. Today's diesel suburban costs half again as much but something tells me the performance, comfort and safety are considerably more than 50% greater. Too bad that at the US median income it'll take your full salary for 2.4 years to pay for one.
I think the new Chevy and GMC SUV's are hideous. I'll take this drivetrain in the new Escalade though. If I could afford an $109k vehicle
Uncle David (Forum Supporter) said:Two reactions:
1. The dashboard design in the Hoeburban is sooooo vastly superior to the dash design in the GM trucks.
2. My dearly departed '76 Suburbans had 144 cubic feet of interior space and fold flat 2nd row seats, - the same as this one, but in a much smaller package. I know: safety, safety, blah, blah, blah, but these things are just egregiously huge.
I don't know, still smaller than my excursion.
They don't look as ginormous in person, I've seen a few around. The extra square body styling makes them look a little off I think.
I actually just found out earlier this week that this diesel option exists in the Tahoe and have been noodling on how to get my wife to consider that as her next vehicle.
You'll need to log in to post.
