This is a long-winded post for all those Suburban/Yukon XL owners out there. I’m just curious what advantages/disadvantages there are for a guy to consider between a 1500 versus a 2500, and a GMT800 versus a GMT900? I believe I’m in the market for a better family adventure vehicle and I think I’ve decided that I need to move up from my Toyota Sequoia to a Suburban. Here’s my rationale and tell me what you think.
First, the biggest factor…we like to road trip, and there are six of us plus a dog. We live in Minnesota, and crushing miles at a relatively high rate of speed (if possible) and in safety and comfort is necessary to get to the mountains and places that we like to visit.
Second, believe it or not, but I’m actually considering the Suburban as my most economical and eco-friendly option. I know that sounds ridiculous but hear me out first. I like to maintain as small of a footprint as possible. I am first motivated by being cheap, and second I am motivated by being eco-friendly if at all possible. Ideally this would involve a lot of tent camping and backpacking and moving long range by our Honda Odyssey. For day to day use for a city family like us, there is no more useful and economical vehicle than a minivan in my opinion. However, I’ve noticed that the more safe and comfortable I make my family feel, the more places outdoors we (I) get to go. Hence that means car camping (or “overlanding”) seems to be more their speed.
So this journey began a few years ago after we took our Honda Odyssey to Glacier, MT. We camped in a tent and hauled our gear and bikes in a rooftop Thule and rear hitch rack. But two problems emerged, my wife was paranoid about camping in bear country, and the Odyssey went from its normal 21-22mpg down to about 13-14 with the thule box and bikes on top and trying to travel in the mountains at a decent speed. So I came home from that trip and decided that the secretly desired Land Crusier and RTT might actually be justified. So we now have a teardrop trailer with RTT on top so that everyone sleeps in comfort and my wife is more comfortable in bear and snake country. But after driving a few Land Cruisers I determined that they were probably too small for my family. I instead opted for the Sequoia for a few reasons: it had the same reliable V8 motor as the Land Cruiser, it had better leg room in the third row than the Land Cruiser, it had more cargo room behind the third row (but pails in comparison to the van), I thought I could maybe get close to the off-road performance of a Land Cruiser, and at the time I believed it would be more economical and maybe better off road than a Suburban or Ford Expedition. But as my kids grow in size (ages 14, 14, 12, 10) and we seem to haul more toys (fishing poles, guns, etc.) the more we get outdoors, I’m thinking that the bigger engine and cargo space of the Suburban might actually save me more gas and money. For starters, if I can store it inside the vehicle, I don’t have the drag of the Thule box up top, and I think the bigger engine (5.3L and 300hp vs 4.7L and 240hp) will actually keep us up to speed better, therefore using less gas. (This spring we average about 14.5 mpg pulling the teardrop to Big Bend NP and back. I was hoping it would be better than that for a 1500 lb trailer.)
Finally, while I think it would be awesome to go on as difficult of trails as possible, from what I can tell, as long as I’m toting around more than 5 people, a Suburban is probably as useful off pavement as the Sequoia. While the Sequoia is more nimble than people give it credit for, it’s never going to be a JKU or 4runner. Realistically I’m more likely going to soft-road it to a camping area and then walk after that. I don’t see serious off-roading in my future.
So back to my question, what are the advantages of a 2500 Suburban over a 1500? I've read a bunch of your posts, and it seems like 2500's are prized, but I’m thinking a 1500 is probably best in keeping with my "stay as light as possible" philosophy, and since I don’t plan on towing much more than a couple thousand pounds at the max, should I even consider a 2500? Also, the payload seems to be much greater for the GMT800 than the GMT900, and I like the looks of the GMT800 better. Is there any reason to spend the extra cash for the newer GMT900?
Sorry for the long-winded post. I appreciate any insights you can give.
First, the biggest factor…we like to road trip, and there are six of us plus a dog. We live in Minnesota, and crushing miles at a relatively high rate of speed (if possible) and in safety and comfort is necessary to get to the mountains and places that we like to visit.
Second, believe it or not, but I’m actually considering the Suburban as my most economical and eco-friendly option. I know that sounds ridiculous but hear me out first. I like to maintain as small of a footprint as possible. I am first motivated by being cheap, and second I am motivated by being eco-friendly if at all possible. Ideally this would involve a lot of tent camping and backpacking and moving long range by our Honda Odyssey. For day to day use for a city family like us, there is no more useful and economical vehicle than a minivan in my opinion. However, I’ve noticed that the more safe and comfortable I make my family feel, the more places outdoors we (I) get to go. Hence that means car camping (or “overlanding”) seems to be more their speed.
So this journey began a few years ago after we took our Honda Odyssey to Glacier, MT. We camped in a tent and hauled our gear and bikes in a rooftop Thule and rear hitch rack. But two problems emerged, my wife was paranoid about camping in bear country, and the Odyssey went from its normal 21-22mpg down to about 13-14 with the thule box and bikes on top and trying to travel in the mountains at a decent speed. So I came home from that trip and decided that the secretly desired Land Crusier and RTT might actually be justified. So we now have a teardrop trailer with RTT on top so that everyone sleeps in comfort and my wife is more comfortable in bear and snake country. But after driving a few Land Cruisers I determined that they were probably too small for my family. I instead opted for the Sequoia for a few reasons: it had the same reliable V8 motor as the Land Cruiser, it had better leg room in the third row than the Land Cruiser, it had more cargo room behind the third row (but pails in comparison to the van), I thought I could maybe get close to the off-road performance of a Land Cruiser, and at the time I believed it would be more economical and maybe better off road than a Suburban or Ford Expedition. But as my kids grow in size (ages 14, 14, 12, 10) and we seem to haul more toys (fishing poles, guns, etc.) the more we get outdoors, I’m thinking that the bigger engine and cargo space of the Suburban might actually save me more gas and money. For starters, if I can store it inside the vehicle, I don’t have the drag of the Thule box up top, and I think the bigger engine (5.3L and 300hp vs 4.7L and 240hp) will actually keep us up to speed better, therefore using less gas. (This spring we average about 14.5 mpg pulling the teardrop to Big Bend NP and back. I was hoping it would be better than that for a 1500 lb trailer.)
Finally, while I think it would be awesome to go on as difficult of trails as possible, from what I can tell, as long as I’m toting around more than 5 people, a Suburban is probably as useful off pavement as the Sequoia. While the Sequoia is more nimble than people give it credit for, it’s never going to be a JKU or 4runner. Realistically I’m more likely going to soft-road it to a camping area and then walk after that. I don’t see serious off-roading in my future.
So back to my question, what are the advantages of a 2500 Suburban over a 1500? I've read a bunch of your posts, and it seems like 2500's are prized, but I’m thinking a 1500 is probably best in keeping with my "stay as light as possible" philosophy, and since I don’t plan on towing much more than a couple thousand pounds at the max, should I even consider a 2500? Also, the payload seems to be much greater for the GMT800 than the GMT900, and I like the looks of the GMT800 better. Is there any reason to spend the extra cash for the newer GMT900?
Sorry for the long-winded post. I appreciate any insights you can give.
