Chevy Tahoe: Going Nowhere in Oregon, Day 6

Jerry
The images posted in the "Day 1" post of this trip make it pretty clear that the seats needed to be removed.
http://66.160.188.111/roadtests/611But let's assume he did it to make a point. It's a point worth noting. I'll be interested to see how this rear seat issue plays its self out over the course of the year with the rest of the editors when they go on trips.Also, your minivan comparision is really not a good one for two reasons: First, the load floor when your Buick's seats are folded is lower than that of the Tahoe, so the lift-over issue isn't as great. Second, all minivans have more vertical interior room than SUVs, so yes, you can pile stuff up higher than you can in a SUV....And, this rear seat issue is one of the reasons Edmunds picked the Expedition over the Tahoe in their recent comparison test.http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=118877#2Lastly, I think this is a bigger issue for the Tahoe than it is for the much longer Suburban. While I think that model should also have fold-into-the floor seats, the Suburban probably could have handled this trip, with all the luggage and presents, without having to remove the rear seats.

Yes, I really had to remove the rear seats and leave them at home. This wasn't a stunt. I had things piled up to the top of the rear headrests. Most of it was Christmas presents. About a third was luggage. I never pack all the way to the roof as I want to maintain a tunnel to the back glass so I can see out.
 
And then there's the Nonna factor. The volume of presents we haul home is ALWAYS larger than the volume we dole out, so we have to leave room for our present-load to grow. The grandparents at our first Christmas stop in San Francisco, seeing our plight, even offered to haul some of the stuff they just gave to the kids back for us. I declined, knowing I could make it work.
 
I owned a 1993 80-series Toyota Land Cruiser, with similar suitcase-sized third seats. I had to take those out and stack them in the garage quite often too. Frame-based SUVs lose a lot of space potential and have a high load floor because of that frame and the full-sized spare beneath the body. When we sold the Cruiser and bought a Honda Odyssey, we noticed a huge improvement in Cargo capacity, even with the third seats staying in but folded into the floor.
 
A comparison of the cargo-carrying specs of any modern minivan to Tahoe/Expedition/Durango will support this. It isn't really a secret. But those minivans don't pull big trailers, don't have real off-road 4x4 capability, and don't project a tough image, so they drop off many folks' shopping list.

Thanks for the reply Dan. I withdraw my objection, at least in this case, to the need to remove the seats altogether.
 
Bob, while I now see his reasoning and agree with it in this case, most minivans may have a taller storage area, but how does the width compare? (I can answer for the Buick, which is narrower than other vans, but not for those other vans).

Jerry, my guess is the width of most minivans and most fullsize SUVs are all pretty close. I think they all can fit 4' wide plywood on the floor between the wheelwells.

Recently I did some wiring in my garage. I bought a bundle of 12 10-foot pieces of conduit. In my Odyssey, it slid neatly under the third row, between the second row captain's chairs and under the shelf between the front seats-allowing me to close the hatch.
 
I did the same thind with some 10-foot 2x6 and 4x4 lumber dor a loft I was bnuilding for my daughter. But this time, I had to fold the third seat into its well and slide the wood over it. Still, the hatch closed easily.
 
I haven't tried this, but I think both tasks would be more difficult in our Tahoe, which has an immovable center console.