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 3: 1; 2; 3; Prev; Next; Last

#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)
#22 of 26 Re: Good article but.... [oldengnr] by catam Jan 13, 2007 (11:34 am)
Replying to: oldengnr (Jan 05, 2007 5:19 pm) Exactly my point. Comparison testing should be "apples to apples". Otherwise it is not really a comparison. I can figure out for myself if a vehicle can pull my boat/camper/etc, based on its tow rating in a given setup. Like I said before, as a consumer, when I read a comparison test, I want to know how 2 different vehicles can perform the SAME job.
#23 of 26 Equal Tow Loads? by kipk Jun 11, 2007 (3:44 am)
Not hardly. The fact that the Expedition is rated to tow more weight should have nothing to do with your test. It does tell me that the Ford has a good margin of weight pulling over the Chevy. That can equate to longevity of the drive train, especially is dealing with tow weights of say 6000 pounds or so. The Ford weighs 303 more pounds. That is what it is! You didn't add 303 lbs to the Tahoe to "Even" the playing field. And you should not have! However, you added 150 pounds to the already heavier Ford ? Then to add insult to injury you make the Ford "Tow" load 1320 heavier. So with the Expedition drive train dealing with 1470 pounds more weight we are now comparing performance? The only way to have a fair comparison is for each vehicle to carry and tow the exact same weight. The fact that the Ford is heavier means it would have to deal with that weight. That is OK! "Towing fuel economy is shown and discussed under the "Tow Test Results and Explanation page," 8.1 for the Chevy and 7.7 for the Ford." The towing economy is with the Ford dealing with 3/4 ton more "ADD ON" weight than the Chevy. Loose that 3/4 ton and the Ford would have done a bit better. Come on guys. Give us a test comparing Apples to Apples! Thanks, Kip
#24 of 26 Re: economy? [actualsize] by guessed Oct 17, 2007 (12:15 pm)
Replying to: actualsize (Dec 20, 2006 11:58 am) I just ordered the '08 Expedition after a year test driving a large field of full size offerings. With their new 5-year warranties I quickly narrowed the field to GM and Ford as they stood out as the most competitive values in all regards. Initially, GM's techy 4/8 cylinder V8's caught my eye, but I was only able to sustain the 4-cylinder mode if I wasn't accelerating or was driving below 70 MPH, beyond which speed the air drag demanded full V8 torque. Once I determined how incredibly narrow the range of 4-cylinder activation was a bulb went off in my head. GM had basically leveraged the V8's existing computer-controlled engine management system with programmatic tweaks that cut out 4 cylinders under certain conditions in order that GM could legally claim a 21 MPG fuel consumption rating. So what if the 4 cylinder mode is rarely invoked, as long as it can be GM wins the mileage marketing point. Reality check: like many folks, I usually drive 75 to 85 MPH on most highways, or else constantly brake and accelerate when traffic is heavier. To make a long story short, the feature had almost convinced me to buy the Tahoe or Yukon, but at the end of all my testing, the Expedition won handily. Even if I lose 1 to 2 real world MPG I have gained a far more composed and manageable ride and an amazingly quiet and genuinely more practical interior, in fact the best ride and interior amongst all American, German, British, and Japanese competitors. More on the subjective side, my tastes even shifted. While I initially was drawn to the GM look I eventually found it slightly chunky and outdated with its excessively large and more rectangular wheel wells. The more angular lines of the Ford grew on me and the interior is reminiscent of Land Rover. Thumbs up, Ford!
#25 of 26 Ford wins, but new Sequoia = "Game Over" by mikon Nov 15, 2007 (10:49 am)
IMHO the Ford Expedition wins this comparison hands down, but now that Toyota has announced delivery of the new 2008 Sequoia next month (see todays article and brief review), it looks like "Game Over." Toyota has taken SUVs to the next level. The Sequoia provides more power, more torque, greater comfort, better handling, an efficient 6-speed automatic transmission (plus a tow/haul mode), greater towing rating, and better mileage rating. Its 0-60 mph at 7.0 seconds blows the socks off Chevy (8.7) and Ford.(8.8). And the last time I saw comparison tests for cabin noise levels, the Toyota was 12 dB better than the next best (Ford). Human hearing operates on a logarithmic scale (hence, dB comparisons are appropriate).12 dB is greater than 10:1 improvement. Although four inches longer and two inches wider than the previous Sequoia, the turn radius has decreased 3 feet to 39 feet...still best. As for mileage, Chevy ALWAYS claims great highway mileage, but NEVER lives up to it. Edmunds long-term test series consistently confirms that Chevy trucks and SUVs overall average is very near (sometimes even lower than) the lowest claimed mileage. I believe the poor real-world mileage is primarily because of the outdated 4-speed transmission and the poor torque versus RPM curve of GM products, which still use push-rod technology. In contrast, the Toyota real-world mileage routinely falls near the uppermost claimed mileage number (check the recent Tundra pickup blogs on this site for confirmation). My 2000 Tundra SR-5 4x4 Access Cab is rated 14/18, yet my overall average (with lots of off-roading and heavy loads) is 17.7 mpg over 73,000 miles. My year-old 2006 Tundra DC 4x4 Limited is also rated 14/18, yet has achieved 18.3 mpg overall since purchased.
#26 of 26 Hmm by paisan Nov 15, 2007 (11:40 am)
I have an 04 Armada and I shopped it against all the American ones. It won hands down in terms of reliability, comfort and towing. I regularly tow an 11,000lb Cigarette boat up to the adirondacks. At 67mph with the AC on in the summer I get 10.5mpg. Can't really beat that in any SUV. Comfort in the second row was far superior to the others as well. With 4-wheel indy suspension it was also comfy. Worth a look if you are in the market. -mike