What do I look for in a purchase?...new to this forum

[ramblemutt]

Need purchasing advice..new to this forum
I am a seasoned auto owner....many cars/trucks over the years. SUVs included earliest Blazer ('83), '96 Blazer, '99 7.4L JimmyBurb, '01 7.3L PSD Excursion...the latter two for towing travel trailers. I'm out of the towing life now (health problems) and no SUV, so looking at the 4.2 Trailvoy line. Years '02 to '06 fit into my budget..looking at SLT, LT, LTZ trims, 3.42 rear end ideally.
Any years better than other years in this range? I see quite a few problems on this forum with the '04 year. Not sure if that's a pattern or just happening that way.
What should I be looking for (other than cosmetics). I understand that these models are blessed with timing chains, so that shouldn't be an issue.
I'm just a senior citizen living up two 10% dugways covered with snow and ice in winter months, so want reliable, no trick-out stuff. Thanks.

 

[The_Roadie]

Welcome! (It was my invitation to come over here where the really helpful community moved to last year).

2004 weren't particularly bad in my experience. I have one. There were just a LOT of them sold in the platforms heyday, so there's more mention of them in posts. 2002 had some first year issues. The engine got a bit more power in 2005+, and the electronic fan clutch was redesigned for more reliability. Most important thing for any vehicle over 50K miles, with 4WD< is if the transfer case fluid was changed religiously every 50K. It's a surprisingly short maintenance interval a lot of owners missed because they refuse to read or believe their Owner's Manuals.

 

[ramblemutt]

Agree about the 02....that's generally the case. Maintenance records important, though not always available. I'm thinking about 05/06, but they're marginal with my budget....unless the difference is meaningful between the 04/05. What improvements did the 05 see over the earlier models?....other than those mentioned above, of course. I think I noticed the 04 problem frequency on the "other" website, though it was a cursory glance and not meaningful.

 

[tbuckalew14]

Welcome! (It was my invitation to come over here where the really helpful community moved to last year).

2004 weren't particularly bad in my experience. I have one. There were just a LOT of them sold in the platforms heyday, so there's more mention of them in posts. 2002 had some first year issues. The engine got a bit more power in 2005+, and the electronic fan clutch was redesigned for more reliability. Most important thing for any vehicle over 50K miles, with 4WD< is if the transfer case fluid was changed religiously every 50K. It's a surprisingly short maintenance interval a lot of owners missed because they refuse to read or believe their Owner's Manuals.

I made the mistake of ignoring my transfer case fluid...it was changed at 50k...started a leak that I never noticed until I went to check it at 110K. Gears burnt out and had to replace it. I have a 2004. This was the only major repair I have done to the truck in the almost 9 years I've had it and it probably(well definitely) could have been avoided.

 

[ramblemutt]

I'm definitely convinced. I'll pay particular attention to the transfer case and can hopefully get the appropriate records when I go to buy. Doubt there is any way to tell much without the records, unless fluid tells all, but by then might be too late.....for the gearbox, not for me....I'll step away, quickly. Do ya think this problem prevailed up through the 06?

 

[The_Roadie]

Numbnuts owners who ignore maintenance intervals are a plague on every year, every platform.

All depends on the mileage if the factory transfer case fluid fill is still there or not.

 

[navigator]

Numbnuts owners who ignore maintenance intervals are a plague on every year, every platform.

All depends on the mileage if the factory transfer case fluid fill is still there or not.

I'm not sure I would shy away from the 5.3 V8 either. They get roughly the same gas mileage, have more aftermarket options and more low end torque. They also come factory with a stouter 8.6 rear end.

 

[ramblemutt]

I'm not sure I would shy away from the 5.3 V8 either. They get roughly the same gas mileage, have more aftermarket options and more low end torque. They also come factory with a stouter 8.6 rear end.

Hmmmmm. You sure of this? What am I looking at mpg-wise, 4.2 vs. 5.3. I was thinking 20-22 highway. Am I dreaming? Not sure I want to go back to my fallback plan, dare I say it. (Toyota Highlander)

 

[The_Roadie]

Some folks get over 20 MPG and rejoice. Most folks get 16-18 and grumble.

A body-on-frame SUV that we and GM call a truck, with HUGE (5000 lb+) towing capacity for its size, is not a gas sipper. But that also means their initial purchase prices are depressed on the used market. So do the math. How many miles a year are you going to be living with less mileage, and what's the difference in purchase price? $1000 difference in price buys a LOT of fuel.

 

[ramblemutt]

Can't argue your logic.....in fact agree with it, but.....you must not be married. My wife is a 30 mpg-or-walk greenie, so GAME ON with anything less than, well you figure it out. I'd love to sneak away with a 5.3 if I can find one. Her SX4 AWD gets 27 and she grumbles..very LOUDLY. If we didn't have big winter like we do (living at 7000'and past the end of the pavement) I'd be getting the mail in my Prius (ugh!). So, walking on eggs with this one. By the way, took a view of a couple of your off-road advents...looking good there. Did mine back in the 80s and 90s, Utah CO, ID and WA, with my 83 blazer stick, tricked up a tad. Hard to let go of that stuff.

 

[The_Roadie]

.....you must not be married. ....

39 years last month. She's the greenie. I get a vehicle that can tow our 3000 pound trailer. My daily driver for commuting is HER hand-me-down 96 Civic. She gets the new Forester. Note this pic is NOT in Alaska.

 

[ramblemutt]

Well, heck...we're on the same page, more or less. Been married 46 yrs, but split it up amongst 4 wives. Current 25 yrs and going strong, only medics tell me I only have a couple more years, so I won't set any records. One reason I like the Trialvoy at first glance is all the power outlets..need a couple for oxygen and battery charging. I make trips to the Oregon coast where I can get down to sea level and breathe, so want something comfortable for tripping with plenty of space in back for my 3 furkids. Take the wife occasionally as well. We used to pull a 9000 lb. TT with the 7.3 PSD out there, but I just can't handle the physical end of towing any longer. Man, here I am carrying on...sorry about that. Thanks for your input. I'm going wheels up here, see if I can find something in the 03-06 range. My local TV car finder source tells me there are 79 such available within 150 miles, so the pickings look pretty good. On the other hand, there are about a million Subarus listed...always a fair fall back source...I've owned a couple over the years. Catch a fair following wind there, Roadie.

 

[Jkust]

Hmmmmm. You sure of this? What am I looking at mpg-wise, 4.2 vs. 5.3. I was thinking 20-22 highway. Am I dreaming? Not sure I want to go back to my fallback plan, dare I say it. (Toyota Highlander)

I'll tell you I wouldn't own a 4.2 and to that end I've owned three of the 5.3's in our platform. The current two have displacement on demand which shuts off 4 of the cylinders within a narrow band of highway driving parameters and the first was a 2004 being the year before they added the dod to the 5.3. I'll get 21-22 on the highway while a small amount of city and it drags the average way down. My two sig trucks get a manually calculated 17.9mpgs or so but the only time I drive long distances is when I'm towing a 4000+lb boat with a fully loaded up truck so I don't know what an all highway trip would yield. I don't know that is sounds like you care about the extra power you get from the 5.3 but when towing I need as much as I can get without goint to a 6.0 liter. This logic is getting a bit dated but all the shopping I did yielded a good bit of knowledge having shopped for three of our platform. What I found was that the Buick version was always the least used and beat up given the demographic that originally bought them meaning no kids or rear seat use if you can locate a one owner. Of course the Buick version starting in 2004 also offered at the time the most standard equipment as well as a 5.3 in the short wheel base version not offered until later in the other SWB's. The SAAB was probably a tie condition wise given the over the top price and again the original demograpic that bought them however it was a tie for the most leased vehicle during its run. The SAAB only comes in on demand AWD and the Buick could have been ordered as a rwd or on demand AWD. Hands down the SAAB is absoultely the nicest of the bunch with an almost modern interior and a whole bunch of upgrades not available on any of the others. People, apparently the stupid ones, think my SAAB and my wife's Rainier are new cars and I don't argue.