vetteman

One of the parts I found most interesting of the broadcast was that the manual transmissions that go into these "Classics" are the last manual transmission p/u's that will be available. The new 900's will not have a manual transmission option-maybe already common knowledge-but I wasn't aware of this. They said that the demand for manuals was low and didn't justify the cost to certify them.

The real information behind the pics is not in the pics themselves, but in the link which shows in depth measurements of the bed lengths, widths, depths, CA's, WB's, etc. It gives you a chance to compare the 900's to the 800's measurements side by side. BTW this is directly from GM's 2007 Trailering Guide.

New Tahoe with Nav has 2 slots-1 behind the Nav screen for the Nav disc and the second exposed for DVD/CD use. The only question I've yet to figure out is whether you can actually play a CD in the front while a DVD is playing in the rear. I have a training session on the new 900's at the end of March so I guess I'll find out then, if not before. BTW, the headrest DVD system shown in that pic is pretty sweet. Each headrest has its own DVD player, so each person can watch a different movie. They're also linked together, so you can watch the same movie on both. They come with wireless headsets and can be played through the vehicle's audio system. Retail for $1995 I believe, which sounds pretty strong until you consider the single screen system in the ceiling costs $1295. Much better deal IMO.

No rebates/incentive money, but the MSRP was cut $1000 or so under GM's new "Value Pricing" system. Would there be a $1000 rebate on the car now if they hadn't cut the MSRP? Would it make any difference if that were the case?

07 Tahoes are in some dealers right now! My dealer has 1. Saw a load (4-5) others leaving his place for other dealers. Dealer says they can't sell it b/c they have no pricing/window sticker, but it's definitely there! Black/Ebony interior/20" wheels/LTZ----AWESOME looking truck.

Maybe I exaggerated the line workers pay a bit, but you neglected to mention what value that 'solid benefit package' might have. How much do you think that FULL health insurance coverage for the employee and his family (not just while you work there, but until you die), a substantial retirement pension, and a JOB BANK that allows you to get 90% of your pay while you sit at home. If you take just health insurance into consideration, let's say it costs $1000/month for coverage for employee/family, that seems to be $12000 a year. On an average 2000 hour year, that converts to $6 an hour for just health insurance. Seems to me that the 'solid benefit package' is a little more than an unmentioned benefit. My FATHER has worked in a food manufacturing plant as a line supervisor for 25+ years, walking everyday on that same concrete floor you speak of. He worked those same 12 hour days and missed alot of my games, etc, so I agree it's no life. But today, after 25+ years on his job, he makes $55k a year. He doesn't get full health coverage, although the company pays a large percentage of his insurance. His retirement is in the form of a company 401k in which he contributes a percentage of his weekly pay and the company adds a couple of percent match. He doesn't complain or begrudge those who make more than he does, as he has only a high school degree, in fact he feels fortunate to have worked for a company who has given him a stable job and income. I'm not saying that union workers don't work hard. I'm not saying to fire them all, and hire replacements at half the cost. I'm simply saying that auto workers have NO concept of the real labor market that exists outside of the auto industry and the protection of the UAW.

The reality that the UAW better face sooner than later is that is it MUCH, MUCH cheaper for GM & Ford to manufacture vehicles in Canada, Australia, Mexico, China, etc, than it is in the US. It would have been unheard of 20 years ago for GM to make a vehicle outside of the US to sell within the US. Now, BECAUSE of the unions, they HAVE TO make their vehicles outside of the US to be anywhere near profitable. If the unions don't change their ways, they'll watch GM & Ford slowly move all of their new plants to countries where they don't have to deal with them. Do you really think that Toyota, Honda, or Hyundai would be opening the number of plants in the US if they had to deal with the UAW and pay the wages that those workers make? I'm sure that it wouldn't happen.

I don't understand why everyone is saying that it's not just the union, GM is to blame too. What about Ford? What about Dodge (before Daimler bailed their butts out)? Isn't it strange how the two biggest American automakers (GM and Ford) still sell MORE cars and trucks than Toyota in the U.S., yet they're both failing financially and Toyota is thriving. No one is saying that the union is completely to blame for this, but it is absolutely absurd to think that someone bolting on bumpers with an air wrench is being paid $90,000 to $100,000 a year. I guarantee that if you offered ANY UAW worker the option of riding out this market uncertainty in his current job at his current pay and benefits, or told him he could take a different job in any other non-automotive manufacturing plant with guaranteed job security, EVERY one would choose to keep his current job. They HAVE to know that the money they make and benefits they get are not a reflection of any other real world job. It's about time that these workers deal with the reality that the rest of us have had to for a long time, that things cost more and, just because of that, our employers don't automatically give us a raise. I'm not anti-autoworker. I understand the devastation it would cause if all of the autoworkers were unemployed. But the autoworkers also need to have a reality check and realize the devastation their current path could cause in the whole American automotive industry.

Anyone notice that the shift lever in the pics of the 2007 Tahoe is the same shift lever that the 2006 HD's have with the 6 speed Allison. Maybe this is going to be the new lever for the 900's, but why then would they only change the lever in the 2006 HD's with the 6 speed and not all of the 800's.

I keep seeing everybody complain about how these 900's aren't going to be "revolutionary", but instead are evolutions of the current designs. Has anybody noticed how different the current designs are from the day they were originally introduced. I mean the whole front fascia has changed on the pickups (multiple times). Does anybody think that maybe GM purposefully makes gradual changes to these vehicles so that the new designs aren't radical departures from the old bodies, and are less likely to completely be turned off (See Ford, bodystyle, late 90's). It would be interesting to see the new 2007 900's with the ORIGINAL (1999-2000) bodystyle of each model. Then I think we could get a true idea just how much has been changed on these models