2007 Chevrolet Tahoe: Creaking like an old house

Kudos to GM for finishing the seats' undersides, though.

First year model squeaks.
I predict tsb will say "add adhesive felt strip to bottom", or replace grommet with redesigned polyurethane model.

What is the real reason for not going for an independent rear suspension. Is it really about just being stingy or is there a tow advantage?? Anyone?

Good question... the rear is a "5-linked solid rear axle" suspension, whatever that is.
But it sure make a potential 3 row SUV into a 2 row + 2 pet seats.

There are actual benefits to the solid rear axle (the real reason behind the lack of an independent suspension). But most if not all will never be taken advantage of by the normal SUV buyer. Of the few that might apply, fewer parts to wear, less expensive to repair / replace come to mind. And the 5-link part is actually a pretty decent setup.
 
Anyway, all the rumors I've heard as to why GM didn't go with an independent rear suspension seem to revolve around timing- they wanted to get the vehicles out the door and onto dealer lots by a certain point in time. The redesigned rear ends, along with new 6-speed transmissions, would've delayed the launch.
 
Not really a dumb move, given that GM has seen the slowing sales trend themselves. They want to get as much out of this slowing segment as possible. And with the hot-on-900s-heels upcoming full-sized crossovers in the pipe, they already had players filling the niche that the fully-independent-rear-end variants of the 900s would be competing against anyway..

According to Ford's website, maximum towing capacity for the Expedition is 9030 lbs. For the Chevy, it's 8200 lbs. Chevy's website rates them at 9100 and 7500 respectively. Both websites claim a payload advantage for their trucks, but clearly the Tahoe's solid rear axle does not give it a towing advantage over the IRS-equipped Expedition. From everything I've heard, Chevy opted for the solid axle due to cost considerations, as well as the reasons outlined by the poster above.

Manufactors tow ratings actually mean remarkablely little.
 
I wish review sites would test trucks at rated loads to see which towed better.
 
Solid axles are known to be more stable under load the IRS but you can't rate a design until you test them back to back.
 
It's a shame writers are more interested in trim, navigation systems and track times then they are in what makes a truck a truck.

"Manufactors (sic) tow ratings actually mean remarkably little."
 
Please explain what you mean by that.

I'm referring to the ability to tow a trailer with ease, stability and confidence as opposed to a legal maximum weight.
 
I've driven trucks that tow with ease at the max rated load while others that are staggered by 50% of their "rated tow capacity".
 
I'm not just considering power either. Some platforms are much more stable under load then others. i.e. the feeling that the truck is controlling the trailer instead of the other way around.
 
Sometimes I think the marketing department has more to do with the rating the the engineers.

"It's a shame writers are more interested in trim, navigation systems and track times then they are in what makes a truck a truck."
 
No it's not a shame. SUV buyers are more interested in trim, navigation system, and track times.
 
Only a few SUV buyers would care about towing capacity. That's the truth.
People buy SUVs instead of cars for their safety, and comfortable open visibility on the road, sitting up tall.

And people buy sports cars and sport sedans to look cool and impress their neighbours.
 
That doesn't stop magazines from fully testing them on the race track.
 
Ironically it's more important to knopw what your truck can do then it is to know what you sports car can do. If you get out of the city, you'll see lots of SUV's and trucks towing stuff.
 
I have never known a sports car owner (or sports sedan) who took his car to a track.

Regardless of whether or not the vehicle is a luxury sedan or an SUV, for $50k, the seats should be silent.
 
GM isn't exactly known for supurb interior design, construction, or materials though...

Regardless of whether or not GM intended to have towing bragging rights or present their SUV as "truckier" than the Expedition by using a solid axle, I bet you if the engineers were pressed, they'd admit they would have rather used an IRS and given that third row more room and ease of use.