All NEW 2015 GM SUV's, i.e., Chevrolet Suburban, GMC Yukan

[Atomic]

Slowly but Surely the Completely Line-up of ALL NEW 2015-16MY* Chevrolet, GMC and Cadillac SUV's, Beginning with the '15 Chevrolet Tahoe, Below:









*Some speculate the staggering of certain variants/trim levels between model years (09/12/2013)

Now for GMC, i.e., Yukon, Yukon Denali, Extended Length Variants:

[hotrodalex]

Headlight designs are a little funky, but otherwise they look solid.

[Atomic]

Headlight designs are a little funky, but otherwise they look solid.

Agreed. A little hint of Ford's Explorer in those headlight's buts not a direct copy. The Caddy should be most interesting of all but it's doubtful we'll see that until it's revealed far ahead of the New York Auto Show at a special GM sponsored unveiling in Manhattan next next Month.

[hotrodalex]

Agreed. A little hint of Ford's Explorer in those headlight's buts not a direct copy. The Caddy should be most interesting of all but it's doubtful we'll see that until it's revealed far ahead of the New York Auto Show at a special GM sponsored unveiling in Manhattan next next Month.

It's odd that the GMC's headlights look like a Cadillac's. Wonder what the Escalade will look like.

[Laconian]

Color me underwhelmed, but then again, they're trucks.

[Rich]

I'm disappointed that the IPs are not differentiated in design. 

[68_427]

The 4.3L should be available on the SWB Tahoe and Yukon IMO

[S204STi]

Like the new trucks, these should look much better in person.

The way this new platform is driving, I'm fairly impressed.  These are very well built vehicles from what I can tell so far.

[Laconian]

Like the new trucks, these should look much better in person.

The way this new platform is driving, I'm fairly impressed.  These are very well built vehicles from what I can tell so far.

I've found that it often works in reverse. The press shots are bathed lovely interesting warm lighting, it's only in person that I notice all the button blanks and weird color choices.

[S204STi]

I've found that it often works in reverse. The press shots are bathed lovely interesting warm lighting, it's only in person that I notice all the button blanks and weird color choices.

We have a few of the new trucks on the lot. They look great, especially compared with the 2013 trucks.

[GoCougs]

Not a big fan of the exterior. Harkens back to station wagon look. The GMT-900-based SUVs blunted that effect greatly.

Shame only the 5.3L will be available unless one opts for the Denali or Escalade (with the 420 hp 6.2L).

[S204STi]

Not a big fan of the exterior. Harkens back to station wagon look. The GMT-900-based SUVs blunted that effect greatly.

Shame only the 5.3L will be available unless one opts for the Denali or Escalade (with the 420 hp 6.2L).

Probably just for the first model year...

[Atomic]

For those fellow spinner that checked in for an early look, know that I just added several new pics to the initial post, above... Enjoy!!

~ Atomic

[hotrodalex]

Have/will they come out with a new Avalanche?

[280Z Turbo]

I'm not understanding the low air dams on modern trucks. The only logical reason to have a high ride height is for ground clearance.

If they wanted to make it more aerodynamic, why didn't they lower the whole damn frame?

[CJ]

It's like the GMC designers looked at the Isuzu Vehicross and said, "Yes.  This is what I want my car to look like."

[S204STi]

I'm not understanding the low air dams on modern trucks. The only logical reason to have a high ride height is for ground clearance.

If they wanted to make it more aerodynamic, why didn't they lower the whole damn frame?

#compromise

[veeman]

I'm not understanding the low air dams on modern trucks. The only logical reason to have a high ride height is for ground clearance.

If they wanted to make it more aerodynamic, why didn't they lower the whole damn frame?

Because then it would look like a ford flex.  or mercedes r class.  or chrysler pacifica.

[CJ]

Because then it would look like a ford flex.  or mercedes r class.  or chrysler pacifica.

The Flex looks pretty good and the Pacifica's biggest problem was never its styling.  It's actually quite good looking, and it drives quite nicely.  With the 4.0, they move pretty well.  The biggest downfall of the Pacifica was that the market wasn't ready for something like it.  It was also horrendously unreliable.

[TBR]

Agree that the headlights are trying too hard and the the proportions are more station wagon-esque than the current model, but overall it's pretty attractive. The first time in a long time I have preferred the Chevrolet variant over the GMC one.

[SVT666]

The Chevy's headlights look like Nissan designed them and the GMC's look like Cadillac's.  Not a good thing for either truck.  The exterior styling is boxier than the previous version which is also not a good thing, but the interiors are fantastic looking.  I hope the materials are actually as good as they look.  For their sake I hope they improved CUE.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Have/will they come out with a new Avalanche?

Good question...

[Secret Chimp]

The GMC looks pretty good. The Chevrolet looks like it was fathered by an F-150.

[SVT666]

Avalanche was officially discontinued.

[veeman]

The Flex looks pretty good and the Pacifica's biggest problem was never its styling.  It's actually quite good looking, and it drives quite nicely.  With the 4.0, they move pretty well.  The biggest downfall of the Pacifica was that the market wasn't ready for something like it.  It was also horrendously unreliable.

while I like the styling of the flex too, it's sales were abysmal mostly because of the way it looked. The Pacifica and r class have little to distinguish them from minivans, except less room.  R class sales were abysmal too and it wasnt because of poor reliability.  it was because it looked like a minivan or worse (a hearse).  The whole point of buying these suvs for the majority of buyers is to get away from the minivan look. 

[veeman]

I like the gmc version a lot.  Especially the one with the fancier grille.  With the headlight design, it looks like an eagle (the bird). 

I never liked the GMC large font they stick in the center of the grille.  The brand has zero cache and never will have any with the intended buyers (wealthy folk, often driven by soccer moms who live in uber expensive suburbia).  They should just leave off the insignia from the front of the SUV.  My uncle used to buy GMC suvs back before the lambda platform came out and my aunt would always have him get a different grille installed by the dealer which covered up the hideous GMC.

[CJ]

while I like the styling of the flex too, it's sales were abysmal mostly because of the way it looked. The Pacifica and r class have little to distinguish them from minivans, except less room.  R class sales were abysmal too and it wasnt because of poor reliability.  it was because it looked like a minivan or worse (a hearse).  The whole point of buying these suvs for the majority of buyers is to get away from the minivan look. 

I avoided mentioning the R-Class because it was never really a serious contender in anything.

[Mustangfan2003]

GM needs to dust off that mini Duramax and use that engine in these trucks and the pick ups. 

[TurboDan]

They look like a full size SUV should look. I like all of them, and the interior shot looks pretty good, too. Hopefully the quality of the materials is on par with the design. GM's downfall (as far as I'm concerned personally) has always been making a reliable, quality car and then loading it up with cheap shit on the interior. Drives me crazy.

But looks wise, these all look great.

Regarding ground clearance, at least around here, I don't see too many big full size SUVs doing much off-roading. The guys riding on the beach are usually using pickups or Jeeps, and then a contingent of FJ Cruisers, Discos, etc.

[GoCougs]

GM needs to dust off that mini Duramax and use that engine in these trucks and the pick ups. 

Then you'll end up with $60k Tahoes. Not gonna be many takers I don't think.