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).
Truck Central: Do you need a Chevy Tahoe with a 6.2L V8?The RST Performance package says you might
About
21 responses to “Truck Central: Do you need a Chevy Tahoe with a 6.2L V8?The RST Performance package says you might”
-
But I want just the 6.2L with the slightly decontented (no 3rd row) Tahoe Custom for just about $50k.
-
Seems like a better deal…
-
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.
-
What can the difference in cost be, to GM, of the two displacements?
-
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.
-
Not just the component count, the actual components would be mostly the same wouldn’t they? ( Block casting, camshaft, heads, ancillaries, mounts, etc)
-
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.
-
-
-
It’s only about a $2800 difference here on the Tahoe, and it comes with Magnetic Ride as well. That’s interesting.
-
The magnetic ride would be a nice bonus. I don’t particularly like the harsh ride and bus-like handling of the Z71.
-
-
-
In a word, no. I wouldn’t pay even $50k for that.
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
-
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.-
Chromes ok, but if you go all out, you gotta add fins too. 😉
-
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.
-
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.
-
That I do not disagree with.
-
-
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.
Why Rally Sport Truck when “Helicopter Wing Wheel”, “Banana Smoothie Cup” or “Bus Boat Truck” are equally fitting?
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.
-
Ford still builds an Expedition?!? I thought it died soon after the FunkMaster Flex edition…
Leave a Reply