2015 Chevrolet Suburban: More Photos

2015ChevroletTahoe
After nearly 80 consecutive years in production and 12 generations, the longest-running nameplate in the auto industry has gone about a half dozen years without a substantial update. But all that's about to change with the redesigned-for-2015 Chevrolet Suburban, which we got an early peek at last week during the State Fair of Texas in Dallas. The full-size SUV boasts sporty new exterior styling, a host of tech upgrades and safety equipment, and a towing capacity of 8,300 pounds.

The new Suburban is expected to hit dealerships in early 2014; until then, you can tide yourself over by checking out Cars.com photographer Evan Sears' photos from Texas in the gallery below.

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

2015 Chevrolet Suburban LTZ

Related
2015 Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban: First Look

2015 Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban: Photo Gallery

2015 Chevrolet Suburban, Tahoe: Video

Comments 

Agent Mike

Aside From UN peacekeeping missions in third World Countries, What on earth would you use something that BIG for ? The Gas Mileage has got to be horrific? ?Unless they build the damn thing out of carbon Fibre and Aluminum, GM is not being very earth Friendly.

Mike Dillon

"GM is not being very earth Friendly." Who gives a damn about being earth-friendly?

The Suburban is also known as the Texas Cadillac and they sell well and retain their value extremely well, even into old age.

Even an old, well-used Suburban can set you back some big bucks. There's nothing on them that can't be rebuilt or replaced.

The US government is the biggest customer for the Suburban, but it enjoys a loyal following from millions of individuals as well.

Suburbans are everywhere. There are plenty of people who buy them, and people who buy them don't worry about the cost of fuel. Not even a consideration!

This new Suburban will be another hot seller even though I'm not yet ready to trade my 1986 for a 2015.

PJ

My father and uncle own seventeen Chevrolet dealerships in California and Texas. Ironically he said for every 2 Suburbans they sell in Texas they sell 7 in California even though the majority of their dealerships are in TX.

Vik

Agent Mike- simple: carrying lots of people, lots of cargo, and towing. Oh, and because someone wants one (notice I did not use the phrase "needs one").

I find it funny that poster like you often jump all over the fuel consumption of SUVs, while completely giving a pass to cars like the Corvette (2013 ZR1 gets 14/21, vs. 15/17 for the 2013 Suburban BTW).

Using your logic: "Aside from track use where someone could actually make use of all that power, why on earth would someone need something so wasteful? The Gas Mileage has got to be horrific?GM is not being very earth Friendly."

Where are your similar protests about other such wasteful vehicles? And since when is a vehicle purchase about what someone needs vs. what they want, or some balance between the two? And who are you to determine what someone needs?

Agent Mike

Well that makes perfect sense. Seeing how close Cali and Texas are to the Mexican Border. You would need something that large to smuggle a large amount of dope and immigrants. Had not really thought of that aspect.
Thanks for pointing that out :)

Highdesertcat

To smuggle, you don't want a vehicle with lots of windows to readily see the contraband.

Belly

... except that a vehicle without windows draws more attention from enforcement officers... and the Corvette ZR1 sells no where close to the numbers of a Suburban... but everybody has to argue...

Vik

Belly/Agent/other pseudonym- except that you are ignoring the very principle of the argument- the fact that the same argument can be made for sports cars, but it's rarely made. Moreover, the Corvette has sold in the numbers of the Suburban as recently as 2008, and Corvette #s are over half that of Yukon XL numbers. Also conveniently ignoring the point about wants vs. needs and who determines needs. But everybody has to argue...apparently under many different names, Agent.

Belly

Boom! Vik finds the conspiracy.

Yes, "the fact" - typical implies that it is anything but... got any numbers?

The Corvette (non ZR1) gets what mid 20's on the hwy. That's pretty good.

Suburban is a good vehicle. But it can be talked about in a wants v. needs context. Try it.

Vik

Belly/Agent/other...

Boom. Belly making a funny still fails to conceal the obvious, but that's beside the point...

Numbers? Reading comprehension is your friend. Look above a few posts, I'll make it easy for you and paste it right here:

Agent Mike- simple: carrying lots of people, lots of cargo, and towing. Oh, and because someone wants one (notice I did not use the phrase "needs one").

I find it funny that poster like you often jump all over the fuel consumption of SUVs, while completely giving a pass to cars like the Corvette (2013 ZR1 gets 14/21, vs. 15/17 for the 2013 Suburban BTW).

Using your logic: "Aside from track use where someone could actually make use of all that power, why on earth would someone need something so wasteful? The Gas Mileage has got to be horrific?GM is not being very earth Friendly."

Where are your similar protests about other such wasteful vehicles? And since when is a vehicle purchase about what someone needs vs. what they want, or some balance between the two? And who are you to determine what someone needs?

You've still failed to address the hypocrisy in singling out large SUVs vs. sports cars. There are very few SUVs out the size of the Suburban, but many models of sports cars- if you add up the numbers, there are no doubt many more "wasteful" sports cars out there than huge SUVs. And so again, using Agent/Belly/whoever you want to be today logic:

"Aside from track use where someone could actually make use of all that power, why on earth would someone need something so wasteful? The Gas Mileage has got to be horrific?GM is not being very earth Friendly."

Where are your similar protests about other such wasteful vehicles? And since when is a vehicle purchase about what someone needs vs. what they want, or some balance between the two? And who are you to determine what someone needs? Those are not rhetorical questions. You can answer them. Try it. ;)

Vik

Belly/Agent/whoever- another shocking fact for you to ponder:

2013 Corvette COMBINED fuel economy: 17-19MPG

2013 Suburban 1500 2WD/4WD (most popular model) COMBINED fuel economy: 17MPG

You can try biasing the numbers by focusing on highway all you want, but combined ratings are most telling and of most concern to buyers. After all, both city and highway should be factor.

So I've posted several FACTS now, but haven't seen one from you, nor a single response to the initial issue I raised.

You can post facts. You can actually respond to my posts. Try it, you might like it.

Highdesertcat

Dudes, it is a moot point.

Like someone else already posted, this new Suburban will be another best seller.

Ponder this, there hasn't been a Suburban made that hasn't been sold.

There are waiting lines to buy them each and every year.

In many places dealers sell Suburbans for a premium over and above MSRP. And people snap them up!

People who buy the Suburban don't care about fuel efficiency or mpg.

Only people who can't afford one will try to jaw us to death.

Belly

Vik (shet...) clearly you are upset. That's just terrible. Pat that little ego and buck up son!

Here are the "facts" about sales of suburban v. corvette so far in 2013:

34,580 v. 7830

But you go on and quote those terrible fuel economy numbers for sports cars that don't sell anywhere close.

Vik

Belly/Agent/etc.-

1. Sorry to burst your bubble, but far from being upset, I find your posts little more than amusing. Your ability to dodge a fact presented or question posed is truly unparalleled, and it brings a big smile to my face every post. Unbelievable.

2. You have completely ignored the facts I presented and points made in the 2 posts above, as well the initial question I raised so, again, you're really good! (At being a terrible debater). :)

3. Feel free to actually address the facts and questions posed anytime. They're still wide open, as anyone who comes across this will no doubt see.

You've proven incapable of debate, but thanks for playing. It's been real. Cheers! :)

Vik

Oh, and one last thing for you to dodge (no pun intended):

2012 Dodge Challenger:
Annual Sales: 46,565
Fuel Economy COMBINED: 17-21MPG

2012 Chevy Suburban:
Annual Sales: 48,116
Fuel Economy COMBINED: 17MPG

Now that that's out of the way, how about actually responding to the points, facts, and questions raised?

It's hard to yawn and laugh at the same time.

Robert Moore

I like the photos, especially the details. Chevrolet has a winner with this updated Suburban.

Belly

Hah, the Shet is back!

Vic (Shet) look little fella, if you can't see the significant difference between the number 17 and 21, I don't know what to tell you. Particularly when you want to look at a combined EPA number. That's just bad (no pun necessary).

Why don't you just "dodge" your own argument by citing another car that has nothing to do with what you said.

Here is a good topic for you:

http://www.wikihow.com/Win-an-Argument-when-You-Know-You-Are-Wrong

You might actually get somewhere!

Vik

Belly/Agent/whoever,

Look, my morbidly obtuse friend:

Of all your dodges, this was perhaps your weakest attempt.

If you actually look it up (*gasp*), you'll see that the 21MPG number only applies to the V6 Challenger. The V8 models are all 17-18MPG.

Now, do you care to offer an actual response, or yet another dodge? Though still amusing, it seems as though you're not even trying now. Just grasping at straws to avoid a real response, and demonstrating some really terrible attempts at humor in the process.

Here's a great topic for you:
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2013/10/2015-chevrolet-suburban-more-photos.html

Try actually responding. You might get somewhere, my intellectually handicapped friend. Cheers! :)

Belly

Wait a minute, morbidly obtuse?! Where would you get that from? But really, stick to words you can understand. I tell ya...

So I guess what you are really after - is why would anyone care about the Suburban when they really should be worried about ALL V8 cars... not sports cars... not Corvettes... even though the V6 Charger sells more than the V8...? Good thing you never said anything like that.

Probably the best thing you would need to look at is actual sales of V8 cars... got any of those "facts", Vik(the Shet)? Haven't seen anything on that (which is apparently the actual issue? But no, you have to fly off the handle on GM... big surprise there).

I don't have those numbers. But either way I bet you are just going to come back with another quote on MPG? And no, not everyone only looks at a combined mileage number, or even city at all... and by its numbers, the Corvette is a pretty fuel efficient car when you actually look at it in context. I'd take it.

Vik

Agent/Belly/whatever...

1. "Morbidly Obtuse": FYI for the language-challenged (Belly/Agent): "morbidly obtuse" was a play on "morbidly obese"- see how they look and sound similar? But, if you really know your vocabulary (and you obviously do not), you'd know it also makes sense. Since I have to spell everything out for you, you'll see these particular definitions are doubly applicable to you:
Morbid: b. Psychologically unhealthy or unwholesome
Obtuse: a. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.


2. You said "Why don't you just "dodge" your own argument by citing another car that has nothing to do with what you said"

Hold up there, little lady. I was talking fuel inefficient sports cars, remember? The Challenger fits the bill just as well as the Corvette, so both of those vehicles support my argument. If you can point out an inconsistency in this argument, I'd love to see it though...(really).


3. You said:
"...even though the V6 Charger sells more than the V8...? Good thing you never said anything like that. Probably the best thing you would need to look at is actual sales of V8 cars... got any of those "facts", Vik(the Shet)?"

No need to change the argument to all V8 cars or anything else. I brought up the Challenger because the sales figures are very close to the Suburban, remember? And sales stats show close to 75% of Challengers sold were V8 in the last available stats from '09: http://www.challengertalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-45599.html

So now we have a car with very similar sales figures:
2012 Dodge Challenger:
Annual Sales: 46,565

2012 Chevy Suburban:
Annual Sales: 48,116

...and very similar MPGs in the V8s that, at last count, made up 75% of the Challenger sales:
2012 Dodge Challenger:
Fuel Economy COMBINED: 17-18MPG

2012 Chevy Suburban:
Fuel Economy COMBINED: 17MPG

...and you STILL can't answer the question? LOL! I'm pretty sure your endless dodging isn't fooling anyone at this point. What are you going to try next, vehicle paint codes?

And so your latest dodge is another failure, but I'll keep playing as long as it amuses me. It's beginning to feel like taking candy from a sleeping baby, though. Put a little thought into it, girl. Oh....wait. Sorry.

Here are the questions again:

Using Agent/Belly logic:
"Aside from track use where someone could actually make use of all that power, why on earth would someone need something so wasteful? The Gas Mileage has got to be horrific?GM is not being very earth Friendly."

Where are your similar protests about other such wasteful vehicles (like the Challenger)? And since when is a vehicle purchase about what someone needs vs. what they want, or some balance between the two? And who are you to determine what someone needs? Those are not rhetorical questions. You can answer them. Try it. ;)

You're a riot, Belly-dancer. Thanks for the laugh.

Belly

Uhm, yes I am woman. You got me. What is wrong with that? Are you now going to explain how intelligent you are for thinking up 'morbidly obtuse' again? Wow. You must be a genius in argument - what next are you going to do next call me stupid? No!!!

So, I will admit I missed the challenger v. charger. I was simply too bored to pay much attention. Sorry about that.

If you can point out an inconsistency in this argument, I'd love to see it though
-Do you know what a logical fallacy is (Besides that you were quoting info from 2009 or 2010)? Here is website:

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

I feel bad about having to provide you means necessary to support yourself, but whatever, its okay. I can point out which fallacy it is if you want.

I was talking fuel inefficient sports cars, remember
-Were you now? Good of you to finally make that point. I guess my response is that even as big as the Suburban the Tahoe as well. And then maybe the V8 Grand Cherokee, and then the V8 Dodge Durango... don't forget any special models that have big and thirsty V8's. And then if you look at pickup trucks... If you can just add different cars, then I guess I can too. I don't think your "sports cars" come close to those totals.

And who are you to determine what someone needs?
-I am anybody who wants to make any determination I want. What about it? I'm not scared of thinking. What, are you? No, no, you like to call people handicapped, and other childish names. Good comebacks you have.

In all, you will see in other posts that I have actually said I think the Suburban is a good vehicle. Another commenter, someone who added without just arguing like a blind GM advocate, brought up how the Suburban gets similar mileage to vehicles with V6s that don't have near the room or capability.

But discussion can't be had - anonymity only breeds the toughest of the tough, Vik (Shet).

Vik

Bellydancer/Agent/whoever,

Amazing. You should pat yourself on the back for finally responding with slightly less of a dodge. However, your arguments remain just as pathetically weak.

1. I said "If you can point out an inconsistency in this argument, I'd love to see it though"

Bellydancer spat:
"-Do you know what a logical fallacy is (Besides that you were quoting info from 2009 or 2010)?
[...more meaningless drivel...] I can point out which fallacy it is if you want."

The casual (and no doubt bored as hell) reader will see that Bellydancer has merely implied an argument, without actually making one. Yes, Bellydancer, do educate us on which logical fallacy is satisfied by my argument. Since I have to spell everything out for you, I'll clarify the "discussion" to date:

a) I point out the hypocrisy in people complaining about the Suburban's fuel economy, while never making similar argument for other fuel inefficient vehicles, like sports cars. I used the Corvette as one example of such a sports car.
b) Belly responds the Corvette isn't a good example because the sales numbers are not close to the Suburban.
c) I point out the Dodge Challenger (another SPORTS CAR), which also has similar fuel economy to the Suburban, DOES sell in numbers similar to the Suburban to quiet Belly's whining.
d) Bellydancer says the Challenger "has nothing to do with what you said".
e) I ask how this is, when my argument was about fuel inefficient sports cars, and the Dodge Challenger fits the bill.
f) Bellydancer pastes a link about logical fallacies in an attempt to sound intelligent, fooling not a one.
g) Vik has a hearty laugh at Bellydancer's expense.

I think that sums it up pretty well, don't you, little lady? Oh, and BTW the numbers are from 2009, the FIRST year the V6 was made available after the Challenger's introduction in 2008, which means V6 sales would be larger, if anything, then subsequent years. Nice try, though. At worst, we can safely assume similar numbers, at least for the sake of argument. Your "logic chopping" (look it up, I know you have no idea what that means) will not work here, little one.


2. Bellydancer regurgitated: "I guess my response is that even as big as the Suburban the Tahoe as well. And then maybe the V8 Grand Cherokee, and then the V8 Dodge Durango... don't forget any special models that have big and thirsty V8's. And then if you look at pickup trucks... If you can just add different cars, then I guess I can too. I don't think your "sports cars" come close to those totals."

I'm disappointed in you, Bellydancer. You were doing so well! But now we see yet another dodge...how sad. I have shed a tear for a brain cell lost...No dice, Belly. You're the one who made an issue of finding an example of a sports car with similar fuel economy and similar sales to the vehicle in question (Suburban). Now that I've done exactly as you asked, you are dodging again. The Agent/Belly argument was specifically about this largest of the large SUVs. I found a sports car with similar fuel economy, and similar sales, and asked where's your protest about this vehicle? And your response is to make it about all SUVs vs. all sports cars instead. Even if you attempt to change the argument as you've proposed, then you'd have to have "facts" including the sales of ALL fuel inefficient cars and trucks. Without that, you haven't an argument, little lady, just a proposal for one. Contrary to your proposal for an argument, you'll note that I've actually made one: I've come with numbers and facts in hand.


3. I asked: "And who are you to determine what someone needs?"

Bellydancer/Agent responded:
"I am anybody who wants to make any determination I want. What about it? I'm not scared of thinking. What, are you? No, no, you like to call people handicapped, and other childish names. Good comebacks you have."

You say you're not scared of thinking, Bellydancer. The problem is that you haven't demonstrated that "thought" in your response. Anyone who reads your total non-answer above can see it. Think a little more deeply about the question "who are you to determine what someone needs?" How do you know exactly why someone wants a particular vehicle? Can you get in their head? If they can afford it, if they can afford the gas, and it's legal, why shouldn't they have it? And what do you propose to do about a vehicle you determine someone doesn't "need"? Anyone who owns a watch that costs more than $15 is in the same category.  The $15 one keeps as good or better time.  Houses are the same way, you don't 'need' much more than a few hundred square feet to live in, but odd, for some reason people have homes a bit bigger than this. Cars really don't need to go any faster than say 80 mph on american highways (speed limit plus a little for safety) but last time I checked most of them do too.  My expectation is that you likely have a few things in your life that are bigger/faster/shinier than they 'need' to be as well; but you have your own reasons for doing so.  No different than the SUV guy I expect. Please point us to where you are opening up similar discussions about other "needs vs. wants" and if not, why not? If you really want to "think" and have a "discussion", as you propose, then why don't we start with responding to this entire paragraph? What say you? Or would you prefer another dodge? :)


4. Bellydancer said: "No, no, you like to call people handicapped, and other childish names. Good comebacks you have."

Awww...Bellydancer/Agent has her feelings hurt. I feel just terrible, too. Buck up, girl! Go back and read your own smarmy posts and you'll see I'm only giving you a taste of your own medicine. Don't dish it out if you can't take it, lady.


5. Bellydancer said "But discussion can't be had - anonymity only breeds the toughest of the tough, Vik (Shet)."

Or the weakest of the weak arguments, as evidenced by every post of yours above (though slightly less applicable to your last post- you're making progress. I'm so proud of you!)

Skankzilla

Belly,

C'mon now, you of all people should know not to feed the trolls. Especially those fed paychecks by GM.

I wouldn't really call what just happened a debate though. Vik calling it a "debate" 700 times instead makes it his own personal agenda to prove his long winded point rather than bring anything consistent and functional to the table. Although, after reading this over and over, I'm still confused as to what that point might be.

Before this went completely apesh*t, nobody on here mentioned sales figures and functionality of sports cars because it has nothing to do with the Suburban or this article. Nothing. Period.

"I find it funny that poster like you often jump all over the fuel consumption of SUVs, while completely giving a pass to cars like the Corvette (2013 ZR1 gets 14/21, vs. 15/17 for the 2013 Suburban BTW)."

Again, nobody directly said anything about sports cars. So how can we assume Agent gives them a pass? Are you internet stalking? Shameful! But YOU did mention the ZR1 specifically. The ZR1 has 638 hp. It is wickedly supercharged. It is geared to be a rocket down the track and do sick and disgusting things that would make your stepmother blush. It has every mechanical disadvantage you can think of to be an embarrassing fuel guzzler, BUT it still manages to crank out better MPG's than the Suburban (hey, those were your MPG figures, not mine). If anything, I'm less impressed with the Suburban now that you brought that up.

Again, YOU brought up the ZR1 specifically and nothing else, so I guess you were the one ignoring the principle of the argument. Or perhaps your initial specifics.

"
So now we have a car with very similar sales figures:
2012 Dodge Challenger:
Annual Sales: 46,565

2012 Chevy Suburban:
Annual Sales: 48,116"

I thought you were talking Corvette? The ZR1 specifically, right? That's okay. We all see what you're doing there! Any reason why you didn't include the Silverado, Yukon, Sierra, Denali, Escalade sales figures in that one? They all share relatively the same powertrain with a few small exceptions. If I recall, GM is top 10 in monthly sales with their trucks. Not the ZR1. Not the Challenger. None of them. Seems significant.

I'd quote more from here, but everything spins a downward spiral. Something about stealing sleeping babies and tasting the medicine of a belly dancer. I don't know.

I'm in a tough spot as it is... I own a Suburban AND a Camaro SS.

Oh right, that doesn't really matter. As highdesertcat said they will sell regardless of what any of us keyboard heroes think.


Vik

Skank- how fitting a name. Don't feed the trolls, indeed. You must be famished.

1. Skank vomited: "I wouldn't really call what just happened a debate though.[..drivel deleted...] after reading this over and over, I'm still confused as to what that point might be."

I know it's hard for you, Skank, but focus. OK? You ready? It's pretty simple to anyone who can read. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those (like Agent/Belly) who criticize the fuel economy of the Suburban, while never complaining about models that guzzle fuel and sell simarly to the Suburban. Models like the Dodge Challenger. Now that wasn't too hard, was it? Point? Made. Read it again if you're still confused. You'll get there eventually, don't worry.


2. Skank spat "Again, nobody directly said anything about sports cars. So how can we assume Agent gives them a pass?"

Hmm...perhaps because Agent, Belly, and all of her aliases and their like, have never commented similarly regarding fuel inefficient sports cars? Please, Skank, if you've ever visited an automotive website, much less a forum, you can see for yourself what people choose to comment on, and what they choose to ignore. Again, Agent/Belly never said anything about sports cars. And therein lies my point. Agent/Belly did choose to say a lot about the Suburban, but nothing about equally fuel-inefficient sports cars. Why the bias? That would be my point, in case it didn't get through that brilliant mind of yours in (1).


3. Skank "But YOU did mention the ZR1 specifically. The ZR1 has 638 hp. It is wickedly supercharged. It is geared to be a rocket down the track and do sick and disgusting things that would make your stepmother blush. It has every mechanical disadvantage you can think of to be an embarrassing fuel guzzler, BUT it still manages to crank out better MPG's than the Suburban (hey, those were your MPG figures, not mine). If anything, I'm less impressed with the Suburban now that you brought that up."

Me: Actually, Einstein, if you read my words and the chronology of this "discussion", you'll see I mentioned fuel inefficient sports cars, and merely used the ZR1 as one example. Nice try, though. You're almost as easy as your bellydancing friend. Weak minds think alike, apparently. Another alias, perhaps?


4. Skank said "I'd quote more from here, but everything spins a downward spiral. Something about stealing sleeping babies and tasting the medicine of a belly dancer. I don't know."

I'd respond in kind, but you have written many words but unfortunately you've said very little. Something about your stepmother and the gas guzzlers that she or you drive, sorry I stopped listening at "who" or maybe "the". I forget.


5. Skank: "I thought you were talking Corvette? The ZR1 specifically, right? That's okay. We all see what you're doing there! Any reason why you didn't include the Silverado, Yukon, Sierra, Denali, Escalade sales figures in that one? They all share relatively the same powertrain with a few small exceptions. If I recall, GM is top 10 in monthly sales with their trucks. Not the ZR1. Not the Challenger. None of them. Seems significant."

I'll say it again, since you seem to be even slower than your bellydancing alias. I was talking fuel inefficient sports cars, with the ZR1 as an example of such. Confusing? That's ok. You'll get it eventually, just read it a few times. We see why you're having trouble. Any reason why I didn't include others? Perhaps because that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Agent/Belly was targeting the Suburban specifically, if you'll bother to read her comment. I submitted for comparison the ZR1. Belly pointed out that didn't sell in the numbers of the Suburban, so I brought up the Challenger, another sports car that does sell in the numbers of the Suburban. Got it? No? Not surprised. Read it again, I promise it's not that hard. Really.

I was kind of hoping for better, but what can you expect from another Agent/Belly alias? Well, what we see above, I guess. *sigh*


Bowrider

For the record, I'm not confused about Vik's point at all. I think it couldn't be clearer or better presented. And, he's right.

Belly

For the record, there needs not be any confusion about Vik's point at all - he changes it as seen fit. And, he's in love with Shet... himself. But that couldn't be clearer or better presented.

Belly

And Skank is a Belly alias - no doubt everybody who agrees then is alias... all you have to do is ask an editor.

Belly

And for those reading here is a summary of Vik's argument:

slightly less of a dodge... pathetically weak... spat...
[...more meaningless drivel...]...merely implied an argument... I point out the hypocrisy... to quiet Belly's whining... fooling not a one... a hearty laugh... little lady... we can safely ass[-]u[-]me...I know you have no idea what that means)... little one... regurgitated...I'm disappointed...I have shed a tear for a brain cell lost...No dice... you are dodging again...attempt to change the argument as you've proposed...I've come with numbers and facts in hand...the weakest of the weak arguments... I'm so proud...

And on and on (I added something there for humor). Who thinks that when you are making a "point" you should say it in hundreds and thousands of words? More than a bit of puffery everyone says? Yes, yes...

Belly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position

Vik

Belly- I'm *so* flattered that you'd take the time to go through all my previous posts and paste all the fun I was having at your expense into one post. :) And then 4 posts in a row, no less, WOW! Looks like I really hit a nerve there, didn't I? I can't help but see that you've concentrated all your efforts on pouting at all the fun I was having with you, while completely avoiding responding to the substance of my posts. For someone who talks so much about "thinking" and "discussion", it would be nice to see you walk the walk just once.

I'll summarize the "discussion" to date. You tell me where you're confused, and why you seemingly cannot offer a response without dodging. Deal? OK here goes:

a) I point out the hypocrisy in people complaining about the Suburban's fuel economy, while never making similar argument for other fuel inefficient vehicles, like sports cars. I used the Corvette as one example of such a sports car.

b) DODGE #1: Belly attempts to dodge the principle of the argument, responding that the Corvette isn't a good example because the sales numbers are not close to the Suburban.

c) I point out that that's a recent development, and the Corvette sold in number similar to the Suburban as recently as 2008.

d) DODGE #2: Belly attempts to dodge the principle of the argument, saying the Corvette is not a good example because the highway mileage is much better than the Suburban's.

e) Just to satisfy Belly's whining about comparing a sports car with sales numbers and fuel economy closer to the Suburban's, I submit the Dodge Challenger, another FUEL INEFFICIENT SPORTS CAR, that DOES sell in the numbers of the Suburban, and has similar combined fuel economy.

f) DODGE #3: Belly claims the Challenger "has nothing to do with what (I) said", even though it is a sports car with poor fuel economy, like the Corvette. It just sells in numbers similar to the Suburban….y'know, an example like Belly wanted? :)

g) DODGE #4: Belly pastes a link about logical fallacies in an attempt to sound intelligent, but fails to actually point out the fallacy satisfied by my argument.

h) DODGE #5: Belly pulls out of her … that the V6 CHARGER sells more than the V8s, which not only has nothing to do with our discussion, but Belly presents no sources to backup what is nothing more than her guess about the relative sales numbers.

i) I present the most recent Challenger model sales numbers available (from 2009), which show that 75% of Challenger sales were V8s, contradicting Belly's out-of-thin-air-and-fact-free-guess about the Charger (again, the wrong car- you can see Belly is really struggling at this point).

j) DODGE #6: Belly now attempts to call into question the validity of the Challenger model sales #s I presented because they're from 2009. This, despite the fact that she apparently considered it perfectly acceptable to present her "facts" about Charger V6 vs. V8 sales that were 1) made up out of thin air, with no reference whatsoever and 2) for the wrong car (the Charger). As you can see, Belly has completely different standards for facts she presents, and facts she'll accept from others.

k) Additionally, I point out that the Challenger sales #s I presented were in a year when one would expect the highest V6 sales (2009- the first year V6s were made available and pent up demand would exist, not to mention the economy and fuel prices at the time) and even those numbers showed 75% of Challenger sales were V8s, contradicting Belly's out-of-thin-air-and-fact-free-guess about the Charger (again, the wrong car). I call out Belly on her attempt at "logic chopping".

l) DODGE #7: After having both her nitpicks/dodges (first sales numbers and then fuel economy) satisfied with my example of the Dodge Challenger, Belly gets desperate, and attempts to COMPLETELY CHANGE the discussion to ALL SUVs vs. ALL sports cars, claiming I am "adding sports cars" to my argument, when I'm clearly doing no such thing. Agent/Belly was targeting the Suburban specifically with her comment. I submitted for comparison the ZR1 as an example of a fuel inefficient sports car. Belly pointed out that didn't sell in the numbers of the Suburban, so I brought up the Challenger, another fuel inefficient sports car that DOES sell in the numbers of the Suburban, for comparison. As anyone reading can see, I am substituting the Challenger for the Corvette in my argument, NOT adding it, and there is no inconsistency in doing so because it is also a fuel inefficient sports car, which is consistent with my initial argument. Belly repeatedly claims inconsistency / logical fallacy in this, but she seems incapable of actually pointing out that fallacy. I'd have something funny to say here, that is, if I wasn't laughing so hard. :)

m) Belly claims she is interested in "thought" and "discussion" of this issue, but only submits this: "I am anybody who wants to make any determination I want. What about it?"…as food for "thought". Where is the thought and discussion, you ask? Good question. In addition, Belly whines about being insulted, while failing to see the condescending tone of her own posts that brought it on (and quite deservedly so).

n) Attempting to take Belly at her word that she is really interested in discussion, I attempt to open a discussion with many questions, as pasted and slightly edited here: Think a little more deeply about the question "who are you to determine what someone needs?" How do you know exactly why someone wants a particular vehicle? Can you get in their head? If they can afford it, if they can afford the gas, and it's legal, why shouldn't they have it? And what do you propose to do about a vehicle you determine someone doesn't "need"? Anyone who owns a watch that costs more than $15 is in the same category.  The $15 one keeps as good or better time.  Houses are the same way, you don't 'need' much more than a few hundred square feet to live in, but odd, for some reason people have homes a bit bigger than this. Cars really don't need to go any faster than say 80 mph on american highways (speed limit plus a little for safety) but last time I checked most of them do too.  My expectation is that you likely have a few things in your life that are bigger/faster/shinier than they 'need' to be as well, no different than the SUV guy I expect. Why don't we open the discussion with you explaining to us your reasoning for some of the things in your life that are bigger/faster/shinier than they need to be, and your justification for making those purchases? If you really want to "think" and have a "discussion", as you propose, then why don't we start with responding to this entire paragraph? What say you?

o) DODGE #8: Instead of participating in a discussion, or in any way responding to the thoughtful questions I'd raised in my post above (summarized in (n)), Belly proceeds to take her time to filter through all my posts and paste all the phrases where I was having fun at her expense. :) I'd think it would be much easier, not to mention in Belly's interest of thought and discussion, to instead participate in a discussion regarding the questions I'd raised, but Belly takes the low road and pouts about being insulted. I'm sorry, Belly, really I am! Now let's move on! :)

p) DODGE #9: Belly attempts to support her position regarding a logical fallacy, merely pasting this "Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position"
…without explaining how it actually applies to my argument. No worries, I can respond to this anyway: Again, Agent/Belly was targeting the Suburban specifically with her comment. I submitted for comparison the ZR1 as an example of a fuel inefficient sports car. Belly pointed out that didn't sell in the numbers of the Suburban, so I brought up the Challenger, another fuel inefficient sports car that DOES sell in the numbers of the Suburban, for comparison. And so I ask how a "cherry picking" logical fallacy applies, particularly when BELLY is the one who wanted to make sure Challenger vs. Suburban model sales numbers and model fuel economy comparisons were exactly comparable, not me. Now that I've met that requirement, Belly attempts to dodge and make it about ALL SUVs vs. ALL cars and then claim a logical fallacy, but that wasn't Agent's comment, and that wasn't my argument. Agent/Belly SPECIFICALLY commented on one model: the Suburban, and I offered one model: the Challenger, in comparison and asked why we're not seeing similar comments about fuel economy.

Not surprisingly, after so many posts, we still do not have an answer. Even more unfortunate, we do not have any response from Belly regarding the "thought" and "discussion" in which she claims to be so interested. How sad. :(

PS: If you want a discussion about ALL trucks vs. ALL cars, you can start one independent of this, Belly, but your attempt to transform this discussion will simply not work, and I don't think you are fooling anyone in so trying.

OS

Interesting discussion.

I am a huge suburban fan but hesitant about the fuel consumption so opted for a Honda Odyssey in 2008. We have a large family and the odyssey works (but feels tired when fully loaded). The suburban is just a much more solid, durable and spacious vehicle - plus it is a fun car with a great history (and it feels good to buy an American product). The Odyssey has better mileage but it looks to me like in combined driving with a full load of people, the difference might not be that large. Given that the suburban's mileage isn't that different from other SUVs, it is in some ways very efficent given its capabilities.

I commute in a Volt and haven't used one drop of gas since buying it so maybe that would help compensate.

Anyone else who needs room for 7 people consider a suburban vs odyssey?

CarbonMax1

OS, yes my wife has a Suburban and I drive an Expedition EL. Why? Because it says screw the global warming nuts and we can like them and can afford to drive them. Do away with federal mileage mandates and the free market will sort it out. But for that to happen too many EPA Nazi do nothing lawyers would be out of the only job they could find.

Robert Moore

Well, its February 2014 and they started shipping the Suburban to dealerships. I look forward to a test drive before I give my final decision on whether or not to buy.

I got a suburban

I just traded our family 2012 Chrysler Town and Country for a 2015 Suburban... My story is funny, i am actually kind of a closet green thumb, in that i hate wastefulness with no purpose or need.

I believe people have the right to choose, but i do get frustrated when people with no kids, and no need drive large SUV's. But i could also be judging them without knowing them so i try not to.

When i finally drove our very nice T&C to the chevy dealer, its average was 16.8 MPG... Not to good... (According to Chrysler website - 17 city / 25 highway mpg).

The new 2015 Suburban that you're all arguing about (Quite humorously really - but why your hating each other is bizarre to me) actually is advertised at 16 city 23 highway...

I've had our new 4x4 suburban for a week now, and we are actually averaging 17.4 mpg... We haven't gone highway yet to test that out - but 17.4 is better than our minivan, thanks to cylinder deactivation feature.

So, for better around town milage (at this stage - might get a little worse), we have a car that actually fits our strollers in the back - plus baseball gear and 4 car seats. with room for one maybe two more passengers to come with us.

We have a 4x4 that is safer (we live in snowy iowa)... And we no longer need to take two cars on vacation when our family visits...

A win for our family...

My wife drives it most of the time - i drive a 2012 Hyundai Sonata (only getting 19.8 MPG right now - but a great car). I am hoping to trade my Sonata for a Chevy VOLT next year...

Anyway, Vik, Belly, Mike, Agent and whoever, i am curious to know if you would think that my family is being wasteful in buying this suburban?

(I realize that when you all had this argument you did not realize that the 2015 Suburban was going to be much more fuel efficient and the best Large SUV MPG on the road)

You are free to disagree with me, just please don't be a hater - and Vik, if you agree with me, don't hate others for - I'm a big boy and can handle people hating on me for driving a car lol...

Cheers

Kevin

If you want a Suburban with the "old school" look, opt for the base LS. You can get a bench seat up front. Same thing for Tahoe LS, GMC Yukon/Yukon XL SLE.

Post a Comment 

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • If you don't want people to see your email address, simply type in the URL of your favorite website or leave the field empty.
  • Do not mention specific car dealers by name. Feel free to mention your city, state and brand.
  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers. This blog is not a fan or enthusiast forum, it is meant to help people during the car-buying process and during the time between purchases, so shoppers can keep a pulse on the market.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
view posting rules

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Search Results

KickingTires Search Results for

Search Kicking Tires

KickingTires iPhone App
Ask.cars.com