2007 GMC Yukon XL- A good year?

Thinking about buying an 07

I’m thinking about an 03 Town Car, but probably won’t buy it.

I’m thinking you should have your mechanic look any vehicle you might be considering before you lay down the cash. Any 12 year old vehicle can have issues if not maintained and not repaired as things fail.

Looking here, seems they had lots of engine issues in '07. Maybe you should consider newer models or an older model.

1 Like

We have lots of GMC Yukons . . . corporate cousin to Tahoe . . . of that vintage in our fleet

And @Mustangman is right . . . the engines aren’t very stout

Not only that, but in my opinion, the interior is of very poor quality. The upholstery wears out very quickly, compared to many other vehicles. And a lot of the plastic literally starts to peel away. Not exactly confidence inspiring

On the plus side, I feel the truck has a pretty good ride

they also have good power. Feels much peppier than an equivalent Toyota Highlander. I mentioned that, because they’re roughly the same size, in my opinion

You’re going to spend much more maintaining the Tahoe, versus a comparable Japanese suv in the same size class

If it has active fuel management, stay away. The 2007 and 2008 5.3 v8’s were known to eat lifters.

a 12yr old gm suv might have 150k miles and not much life left for trans. include towing by previous owner and now you toss things up even more


As I said earlier, we have lots of GM trucks with the afm 5.3 V8 in our fleet, and several of them have had lifter problems . . . to put it nicely

And these problems occurred with only about 100K . . . rather early, in my opinion

The 6.0 without afm has been MUCH more reliable. And we also have tons of GM trucks of all kinds in our fleet with that exact engine, many of them working extremely hard, extensive idling, towing heavy loads, etc. Many of them are older than the truck op is considering buying, and have been soldiering on without any base engine problems all these years

1 Like

The Yukon is considerably bigger than the Highlander (the XL even more so). It’s more on par with the Sequoia.

Earlier 5.3’s, 4.8’s and 6.0s without active fuel management are very reliable. 300K miles is not hard to achieve with the engine.

You will be on your 2nd transmission and transfer case by then. Maybe the 2nd axle if you tow a lot. And a PILE of old brake parts including the rubber AND hard lines. Plus a pile of windowlift motors and HVAC actuators.

I have a 2004 5.3 with 135K miles and the engine is fantastic.

1 Like

I won’t say AFM killed the ls engine’s reliability. But it hindered it. A lot.

155k on my 4.8. No issues that I’m aware of (I bought it with 137k), other than the fact that the power is kinda meh (to be expected). Personally, I’d avoid the early AFM motors. Maybe they got it right in the later years. But 2007 and 2008? Nah. They even had a lifter replacement tsb out. I’d pass, myself. I owned an 08 gmc with the 5.3 and traded it because of lifter noise at cold start and spark knock when in V4.

The 5.3 L engine seems to have active fuel management. I’d avoid that were I the one making the decision. Too much repair and maintenance risk to take on for the benefits. Besides that there’s been weird failures with the heated WW washer system, WW motor problems, BCM caused battery drain problems, etc etc. IMO this vehicle is an example of a design attempt to try to do more than vehicles are actually capable of doing. Or at least doing reliably. Unless OP really needs a lot of bells and whistles to accomplish their objectives, suggest to look elsewhere.

Are there any bigger V8’s that don’t have AFM ??? I think it’s a crappy way to save fuel along with my personal favorite stop/start which I wont touch without at least a way to shut it off . All makers can take that function and can it .

the 6.0 didn’t have afm for a long time . . . although I wouldn’t be surprised if it got it later on.

I never really looked into it, as the 6.0s in our fleet didn’t seem to have base engine problems