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

#4 of 26 Impressed by jerrywimer Dec 20, 2006 (4:08 am)
By the Expedition's performance when towing. Especially given the higher tow rating (and tested weight behind it). Despite many owners' claims that this particular engine felt week, it obviously is stronger than they perceive it to be. Having said that, the $50k Tahoe price HAS to be sticker, because I've seen LTZs going for less than that, which means they've also got 20" wheels / tires and the Autoride suspension system- addressing two areas that the Expy won in, steering/handling and rear sag when trailering. It's even possible to get the LTZ without the backup cam / nav, making the comparison even more apples-to-apples. Not that I think it would have won. It's obvious that the reviewers: 1) are enamored by smaller vehicles (heck, that's even expressed in writing!) 2) therefore love vanlike fold-into-the-floor seats and IRS All that says to me is that at least the review presents a lot of information, but if you're in the market for something like this, disregard the editors' opinions and go with the fact-based parts when deciding which vehicle suits your needs and desires. It could be that the fold-flat / IRS or Ford styling does it for you. If so, great. If not, great too.
#5 of 26 economy? by ricketts22 Dec 20, 2006 (9:36 am)
Replying to: KarenS (Dec 19, 2006 11:43 am) you guys didnt mention the fuel economy of the two SUVs. i'd kinda like to know how they did in a little more detail than the spec sheet, like what to expect on the highway, and when towing. Personally i dont need a third row seat, my '99 didnt even have the option, so its not really in the equation. A couple miles per gallon are a bigger deal. Replies to this message: actualsize (Dec 20, 2006 11:58 am) guessed (Oct 17, 2007 12:15 pm)
#6 of 26 Re: economy? [ricketts22] by actualsize Dec 20, 2006 (11:58 am)
Replying to: ricketts22 (Dec 20, 2006 9:36 am) Our actual observed fuel economy, 15.4 for the Chevy and 13.5 for the Ford, appears on the "Specifications and Performance" page, alongside the manufacturer's ratings. 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. Links to both of these pages appear in the column to the left of the story. As for things like the absences of gauge comments and V4 operational details, a very good observation, we couldn't put everything in this story. Since these trucks have previously had First Drives and Full Tests written about them, and the Tahoe is in our Long Term Road Test Blog fleet, we left certain details out to avoid redundancy and repetitiveness. Replies to this message: guessed (Oct 17, 2007 12:15 pm)
#7 of 26 Re: Article Comments: 2007 Full-Size Domestic SUVs Comparison [KarenS] by canddmeyer Dec 20, 2006 (1:37 pm)
Replying to: KarenS (Dec 19, 2006 11:43 am) Despite weighing 280 more than the Tahoe, and being put at a disadvantage with another 1300+ pounds of ballast, the Expedition kicked butt with a 1600 pound penalty. Overall, a great article, but the towing test should have been done as is, without the ballast. Replies to this message: cobra32 (Dec 20, 2006 9:17 pm) actualsize (Dec 21, 2006 12:08 pm) ahightower (Dec 21, 2006 9:07 pm) jerrywimer (Dec 21, 2006 4:56 am)
#9 of 26 Re: Article Comments: 2007 Full-Size Domestic SUVs Comparison [canddmeyer] by cobra32 Dec 20, 2006 (9:17 pm)
Replying to: canddmeyer (Dec 20, 2006 1:37 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. In a 1/4 mile test every hundred pounds is equal to 1/10 of a second extra time. So in a 1/4 mile distance of this tow test between the two vehicles you added over a full second every 1/4 of a mile to the Ford in the towing test. Tow ratings is not based on how fast you can pull a load but by how much your drivetrain can handle without falling apart. The only thing the Tow test shows is how the Ford can tow 6710 pounds up a hill and the Chevy only 5390 pounds up a hill. So how does the Ford rate at pulling 5390 pounds up a hill we will never know now will we. Do you guys think that maybe 1300+ pounds is gonna make a difference in the time and gas mileage of the Ford in the towing test it's a simple fact to move a heavier load will take more energy which means fuel and time than a lighter load. Replies to this message: actualsize (Dec 21, 2006 12:08 pm) ahightower (Dec 21, 2006 9:07 pm)
#10 of 26 Re: Article Comments: 2007 Full-Size Domestic SUVs Comparison [canddmeyer] by jerrywimer Dec 21, 2006 (4:56 am)
Replying to: canddmeyer (Dec 20, 2006 1:37 pm) I agree. This is why I was impressed with the posted observations of the Expedition's towing performance. I still don't understand all the owners' complaints that the engine feels weak, at least not based on the comparison test results here. Maybe Ford has improved something dramatically in the new drivetrain over the older ones though. BTW, the unloaded overall economy results still favor the Tahoe by a decent margin (15+ vs. 13+), so even though the tow test was a bit unbalanced purely because of the ratings, I doubt the Expy would've done much differently on the fuel economy thing than it already did. The hillclimbing (speed) numbers may've looked better though.
#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)