25 Apr 12 07:02, Roger Nelson wrote to Roy Witt:

 RN>> decided to trade it anyway for an '02 Tahoe, which in my opinion,
 RN>> doesn't ride as good as the '99 Yukon.  Maybe Roy knows the answer
 RN>> to that.

 RW>> Sure. The Tahoe is a foot or so shorter than a Suburban/XL and
 RW>> probably has bad shocks on rear coil springs. The Yukon, if it is
 RW>> an XL, is leaf sprung or the same as a Suburban. The extra weight
 RW>> of that 'foot or so' gives the Suburban a better feel to the ride
 RW>> quality. But I'd buy a Tahoe over a Suburban or XL any day. On some
 RW>> concrete paved roads, the longer wheel based Surburban will tend to
 RW>> 'hop' over the road joints, while the Tahoe with the shorter
 RW>> wheelbase won't.

 RN> The ride in the Suburban or the '99 Yukon XL was much smoother than
 RN> the '02 Tahoe, but far be it from me to suggest it has bad shocks or
 RN> coil springs because the SIL and I have already had that conversation
 RN> and the only thing we agreed on was that the Tahoe steered easier.
 RN> (-:

Take that XL out to I-10 and drive it in the truck lane. The roadway sags
from the weight of the 18wheelers. But, for some reason the end joints are
better supported and don't sag. The longer wheelbase of the XL will hop
over those joints. You may not notice it during the drive, but you can see
it in every Suburban and XL on the road.

My 72 Cheyene with a 127 inch wheelbase, camper shell and three full tanks
of gas did that hop on I-5 on our many trips to San Jose and back to San
Diego. Which is why I drive a short bed Silverado today.

                R\%/itt


  ... Only those who will risk going too far can possibly
  ... find out how far one can go ~ TS Eliot


--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10