Quantcast

Home » Hoonivercinema » Currently Reading:

Truck Central: Do you need a Chevy Tahoe with a 6.2L V8?
The RST Performance package says you might

Jeff Glucker March 6, 2018 Hoonivercinema 21 Comments

Since the dawn of time, the Chevy Tahoe has trekked along with a 5.3-liter V8 engine betwixt its fenders. Now though, if you’re itching for a Tahoe with more GO, you can get just that. This is the Tahoe RST optioned up with the Performance Package. RST stands for Rally Sport Truck. The Performance Package means you’ve pulled the 355-horsepower 5.3-liter out in favor of a 6.2-liter V8, and you now have a Tahoe with 420 horsepower and a ten-speed automatic gearbox.

There are a handful of other upgrades that come along for the ride as well. Switching to the larger mill also means a move to magnetic ride suspension. There’s also another upgrade package that adds in massive front brakes and a Borla exhaust. The front clampers see a move from 13-inch rotors to a six-piston Brembo setup squeezing down on a 16.1-inch rotor. Those are larger than the wheels on my ’74 Benz. By more than two inches.

This one certainly isn’t cheap, of course. As-tested this Tahoe clocks in with a price tag of $78k. That’s basically Yukon Denali money and nearly Cadillac Escalade money. It’s also about $8k more than a Durango SRT, which makes quite a bit more power.

So with the Tahoe RST Performance we have a full-size SUV that can scoot from 0-60 in under six seconds… but it can’t outrun the issues I have with its suspension setup (too stiff) and the price tag relative to competition (too high).

  • P161911

    But I want just the 6.2L with the slightly decontented (no 3rd row) Tahoe Custom for just about $50k.

    • Jeff Glucker

      Seems like a better deal…

      • P161911

        The Tahoe Custom is about $45k. In the Silverado the 6.2L is about $4k more than the 5.3L in the same package. So I want it for just under $50k, about $40k with rebates and discounts.

        • Rover 1

          What can the difference in cost be, to GM, of the two displacements?

          • Zentropy

            I’m guessing it’s the economy of scale that’s the difference. I’m sure Chevrolet pumps out far more 5.3s compared to the 6.2s, making them cheaper to produce, even if the component count and assembly processes are relatively similar.

            • Rover 1

              Not just the component count, the actual components would be mostly the same wouldn’t they? ( Block casting, camshaft, heads, ancillaries, mounts, etc)

            • SlowJoeCrow

              There could also be CAFE numbers involved. while it’s more lenient for trucks GM may make the Tahoe 5.3 only to keep the numbers up.

        • Jeff Glucker

          It’s only about a $2800 difference here on the Tahoe, and it comes with Magnetic Ride as well. That’s interesting.

          • Zentropy

            The magnetic ride would be a nice bonus. I don’t particularly like the harsh ride and bus-like handling of the Z71.

  • Zentropy

    In a word, no. I wouldn’t pay even $50k for that.

  • Zentropy

    Thirteen semi-obsessed instances of “chrome” in 43 seconds. I’m guessing you didn’t care for this concept, Jeff: https://car-images.bauersecure.com/pagefiles/4331/bugatti-galibier.jpg

    • Zentropy

      In all honesty, I too only like subtle, conservative use of chrome most of the time, but I never hesitate to poke fun.
      On the subject of chrome balance, I find this Bugatti pretty ridiculous, but I also think the black Tahoe RST looks like a plasticky hearse. However, I don’t find the new Tahoe very attractive– I the GMC Yukon and the previous-gen Tahoe are far better looking, IMO. Chevrolet doesn’t make a front fascia that I find appealing.

      • crank_case

        Chromes ok, but if you go all out, you gotta add fins too. 😉

  • Smaglik

    I like fast cars, I like SUVs, and I guess by extension I like fast SUVs, but compared to other offerings, like those from FCA, this just feels half assed, and I am far from a Dodge fan boy.

    • P161911

      Yeah, but I trust a Tahoe to be on the road for many more miles without catastrophic repairs vs. A Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT or Alfa Romeo Stelvio.

      • Smaglik

        That I do not disagree with.

    • Zentropy

      Mass is the enemy. In that vein, the Durango and JGC are pushing the limits of how much fun you can have in a big vehicle. The Tahoe RST is really a wasted effort, because the result doesn’t achieve much. Yes, it handles better than the regular Tahoe, is a tick faster 0-60, and likely has a solid edge in 1/4 mile. But it can only be called sporty if you qualify the word with “for an SUV”. For the money, I’d take my reliability lumps with the FCA trucks. Or better yet, consider the SUV the ego-massaged heavy minivan that it really is, and buy a sports car.

  • Betteridge’s law of headlines says you don’t.

  • Sjalabais

    Why Rally Sport Truck when “Helicopter Wing Wheel”, “Banana Smoothie Cup” or “Bus Boat Truck” are equally fitting?

  • neight428

    I would drive this truck, though I doubt I’d pay for it. I like the effort on the brakes. Giant vehicles with giant wheels are hard to stop, would like to see more of that. For the power, Ford’s big ecoboost used in the Expedition seems to have a healthy aftermarket following that could get you to that 420 hp mark pretty easily for far less scratch if the factory spec 470 lb-ft of torque doesn’t get you all you wanted.

    • Vairship

      Ford still builds an Expedition?!? I thought it died soon after the FunkMaster Flex edition…