Article Comments: 2007 Full-Size Domestic SUVs Comparison

26 messages, Last post on Nov 15, 2007 at 11:40 AM

You are in the SUVs Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford Expedition, SUV

Article comments for Comparison Test: 2007 Full-Size Domestic SUVs - Capping off our comparo, we lashed a sizable burden to the back of each ute and made them pull it up Jacumba grade, an 11.5-mile interstate hill that spends a lot of time between 5 and 7 percent. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 3 of 4: 1; 2; 3; 4; Prev; Next; Last

#12 of 26 Why????? by jsmilesrmhs Dec 21, 2006 (7:47 am)
why does it always seem that car websites and people put the blame on American cars. I understand that back in the nineties ford ,and GM were the first to have large suv's, but it is now in the 2000's. You said for your title only in america when Nissan has the Armada, and Toyota has the Sequoia. Why did you not test them. That's right you only test foreign cars when they are up to date, but you tested the Chrysler Town& Country when that is outdated. It always seems that when peaple metion american cars it always negitive, even though GM is making a good comeback. Replies to this message: actualsize (Dec 21, 2006 12:20 pm)
#13 of 26 Re: Article Comments: 2007 Full-Size Domestic SUVs Comparison [cobra32] by actualsize Dec 21, 2006 (12:08 pm)
Replying to: cobra32 (Dec 20, 2006 9:17 pm) The tow test is totally useless. Both vehicle should have had the same weight to tow. Your logic is very flawed in that the 1300+ extra pounds that the Ford had to carry up would not effect its results in your tow test. It would be like doing a drag test and putting one vehicle with a 1300+ pound load and expecting it too not effect the outcome just because it rated to pull more. As one who has worked for OEs, and been involved in a lot of towing development projects, I have to say that while I understand this line of thinking, I disagree with it. Totally useless? No way. If a manufacturer rates a vehicle to tow a certain amount, we want to verify that claim. Bottom line. When shopping, can you trust the figure, or is it so much marketing hype? As equipped, Ford claimed 9000, Chevy 7200. To tow the lighter trailer behind the Ford too would have given it an advantage, as it wouldn't be as highly stressed as the Chevy. With the same trailer, it would be like asking a middleweight to fight a heavyweight. So, yes, the Ford is handicapped based on its higher rating. And while it's true that oil, trans, and water temperature are at the crux of a manufacturer's tow rating, the ability to maintain speed up a grade, the behavior of the transmission while doing so, and the gearing are equally considered. I've done those tests myself as an engineer. And as a civilian towing my own enclosed trailer, the ability to merge onto the highway smoothly and at least keep up with traffic when climbing a grade, and perhaps pass a few semis on the way up, is important. Towing 0-60 isn't quite the same as the tests we do when we compare, say, a Porsche to a BMW. In those cases, weight isn't handicapped because neither car is in the business of hauling or pulling any payload, apart form itself and it's passengers. They both are towing zero. They only claim to be quicker than the other guy. So would the Ford have been quicker and faster towing the same weight as the Chevy? Yes indeed. But with an 1800 lb rated capability difference, I think we could have predicted that without doing the test at all. I'm sorry, but that's just the way my automotive engineer brain thinks! Doesn't anybody have my back? Replies to this message: ahightower (Dec 21, 2006 9:07 pm)
#14 of 26 Re: Why????? [jsmilesrmhs] by actualsize Dec 21, 2006 (12:20 pm)
Replying to: jsmilesrmhs (Dec 21, 2006 7:47 am) You said for your title only in america when Nissan has the Armada, and Toyota has the Sequoia. Why did you not test them. The availability of the Ford, for our tests, was too tight. We couldn't assemble the others at the same time. Because the US offerings are hot, we felt that we should get the information out to you as soon as we could. We have the Tahoe for a year, so look for comparos including the others in the coming months. It always seems that when peaple metion american cars it always negitive, even though GM is making a good comeback. I don't think we portrayed these as negative compared to imports. The crossovers we alluded to include things like Saturn's Outlook and the GMC Acadia. In fact, we credited Ford and Chevy as being the dominant players in the segment.
#15 of 26 Re: Article Comments: 2007 Full-Size Domestic SUVs Comparison [actualsize] by ahightower Dec 21, 2006 (9:07 pm)
Replying to: actualsize (Dec 21, 2006 12:08 pm) Makes sense to me.
#16 of 26 ...everybody has one... by ahightower Dec 22, 2006 (8:32 am)
It's interesting that in the full test article on the Navigator L, the reviewer constantly compared it negatively against the Escalade. They preferred the Caddy's brakes, engine, interior, everything. Very little attention was given to the Caddy's third row. I realize it wasn't a comparison test, but I think that goes to show like some others have said, different reviewers on different days place different values on things. Take the articles for what they're worth, but do your own thorough investigation and determine your own needs and priorities before deciding one way or the other.
#17 of 26 My take by saveoursuvs Dec 24, 2006 (7:38 am)
I've tested both vehicles to a large extent and am pleased with this report to help make the final purchase decision this Spring. My concerns are mpg and long term ride qualities, the latter of which suffer tremendously in American cars, at least the ones I've tried in used car lots. Ford isn't reporting mpg on the Expedition yet and Chevy has A LOT of angry customers that are threatening class action lawsuit over their supposed 21 mpg Tahoe. IMO: I lean towards the 07 Tahoe for it's somewhat sexier package BUT there's no doubt the 07 Expedition has the more complete package. Expedition has far more logical controls in the cockpit but are accented with 70's chinsey plastic chrome trim. It has far more logical 2nd and 3rd row accommodations including 2nd row cupholder that aren't at the passenger's feet like 2nd row Tahoe buckets and 3rd row fold flat feature that speaks volumes over Tahoe's idiotic 3rd row which are uncomfortable and a pain to deal with for cargo. Tahoe's guage package is far more appealing but have the usual stupid American logic in actual use of controls (no intuition when controlling rear passenger heat/air controls). Outside the box(es): Ford is all plastic, well actually they BOTH are but ALL the chrome you see on Fords' nose is crappy chrome plastic! And the 20 inch "chrome" rims: good old chrome plastic hubcaps like I bought in auto stores 4 for $100 when I had my 1st-2nd jobs. At least Chevy has the sensibility to give you real alloy for the $1500 wheel upcharge on Tahoe LTZ, plus in 2007 they really know how to make American trucks look studdly, or is it studly? I wouldn't know since I'm not studlly. The ride is very similar in both with perhaps a nod to Chevy in that it's a little more of a fun brick to drive than Ford. It's a hair sportier in the corners due to the $1200 Auto ride air suspension upcharge in LTZ. Remove Auto ride and I'd side with the authors that Ford probably has a better feel-certainly less of a bobbing ride than the Tahoe with stock 17 inch wheel and stock suspension. For 45 large you better like what you're buying and in the end with all it's logical amenities including a very, very nice ride the Ford just reeks of chrome plastic boat on wheels. (Plastic wheels that is). Wish it weren't true, the dealer's only 3 miles away...
#18 of 26 Re: Article Comments: 2007 Full-Size Domestic SUVs Comparison [KarenS] by 50k Dec 24, 2006 (4:23 pm)
Replying to: KarenS (Dec 19, 2006 11:43 am) I am researching Toyota Sequoia for lease. I like my bullet proof 4Runner however my wife wants more headroom. Lease expiring on my 4Runner, Sequoia is the logical upgrade. My concern is wind and road noise. I have a 2005 Trailblazer and it is no where near the quality of 4Runner. This is preventing me from looking at domestic products. I have also found quite a few negatives on Pathfinder and Armada. ( Armada being built domestically). Are there any Sequoia drivers out there that can provide real world driving experience ?
#19 of 26 Good article but.... by catam Dec 28, 2006 (10:48 pm)
2 probs Comparison test should be designed for consumers not engineers. I could care less if these vehicles can tow 89% of their rated capacity or not. In a comparison I want to know how each is likely to tow my 6500# boat. I don't want to guess that maybe the Ford would do just as good or better with the same load, I should get that info from you in a comparo. Save the "89% stuff" for the individual tests. Second, you guys need to put emphasis on real world use stuff. The Fold flat 3rd row is a nice feature but it is so rarely used by most drivers it shouldn't be a deciding factor. If you want to start spliting hairs then you could also say "well the Chevy has rear view camera, the Ford doesn't, thus we chose the Chevy." Again a nice feature, but not a deciding factor. Replies to this message: actualsize (Jan 05, 2007 3:16 pm) oldengnr (Jan 05, 2007 5:19 pm) catam (Jan 13, 2007 11:34 am)
#20 of 26 Re: Good article but.... [catam] by actualsize Jan 05, 2007 (3:16 pm)
Replying to: catam (Dec 28, 2006 10:48 pm) Comparison test should be designed for consumers not engineers. I could care less if these vehicles can tow 89% of their rated capacity or not. In a comparison I want to know how each is likely to tow my 6500# boat. I don't want to guess that maybe the Ford would do just as good or better with the same load, I should get that info from you in a comparo. Save the "89% stuff" for the individual tests. I understand your point and I think its quite valid. I think both points make sense--for different reasons. Time permitting, we can add another run up the hill in future tests pretty easily. Once the ballast comes out of the trailer for the lowest rated comparo vehicle's run, we can hook it back on to the higher rated one for a straight comparison pull. That way, we can cover the subject from all angles. But based on your 6500 lb boat, our Tahoe might well be over it's tow rating anyway. Because of options present, our Tahoe's actual tow rating is 7,080 lb, not 7,200. That leaves 580 lbs for your passengers, luggage, fishing/ski gear, boat fuel, and any excess personal bulk over 150 pounds* you might possess. I weigh 200, so when I drive this Tahoe, I can tow 7,030 lbs - by myself, with no luggage. This sort of thing is in the manufacturer's fine print. MAXIMUM tow rating, they call it. That sort of uncertainty is one reason why we tow at 90% (89% is how the final numbers worked out here) of rated capacity. *150 lb is the assumed driver weight most manufacturers use when they calculate their ratings. Replies to this message: oldengnr (Jan 05, 2007 5:19 pm) catam (Jan 13, 2007 11:34 am)
#21 of 26 Re: Good article but.... [actualsize] by oldengnr Jan 05, 2007 (5:19 pm)
Replying to: actualsize (Jan 05, 2007 3:16 pm) But based on your 6500 lb boat, our Tahoe might well be over it's tow rating anyway. Because of options present, our Tahoe's actual tow rating is 7,080 lb, not 7,200. That leaves 580 lbs for your passengers, luggage, fishing/ski gear, boat fuel, and any excess personal bulk over 150 pounds* you might possess. I weigh 200, so when I drive this Tahoe, I can tow 7,030 lbs - by myself, with no luggage. If that is the case, the Tahoe rating would have to take a big hit if you chose to tow that boat. I cannot see the value to the logic of taking two vehicles in the same class in a head to head comparison and handicapping. The rated HP of the Tahoe was greater, so what handicap did that get? The tow test was less than useful due to the illogical effort to handicap the Expedition. I ran a test lab and supervised engineers for 17 years, and I can tell you that the only thing the tow test may have actually proved was that the Expedition was better equipped for the job at a lower price. The vehicles were supposed to be representatives of the same class of large SUV. If you were going to handicap ratings... the size of the tires should have been handicapped for, as well as the size of the brakes, the rated engine output, the different transmission gears etc. A head to head comparison should be just that. Use what you brought in equal test conditions and publish the results. If a manufacturer rates a vehicle to tow a certain amount, we want to verify that claim. Bottom line. When shopping, can you trust the figure, or is it so much marketing hype? That is fine. Verify the claim that the Expedition can tow more weight than the Tahoe, and the rating is accurate. Replies to this message: catam (Jan 13, 2007 11:34 am)