Fullsize SUVs
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:04 am
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/exp ... 2DC9AD1EB3
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/exp ... C8F9BC23EE
So here's a case where GM is on the other side. They have the more popular model but objectively it is not the better product. It does make me a little nervous because that is also a market position they took for granted until it was too late a few decades back.
The K2XX SUVs do need IRS, so I hope that is coming next gen. That will improve the ride/handling as well as the 3rd row/cargo floor height issue. The 5.3L is also outmaneuvered by the competing engines which are all the best from those parent companies. I don't know how much the 6.2L would have changed the finishing order though. Also on paper the 5.3L is perfectly competitive but I think it lacks some low end grunt. I mean it is the weakest engine here, but about the same (on paper) as the Durango w/ Hemi.
What IS kind of impressive is the Tahoe has the best predicted 5 year cost of ownership. I did not beat the Expedition by much but it did beat it. And in reality the Nissan is the only one that moves the needle into the red. A couple thousand either way over 5 years does not seem like it should be a decision-driver.
Other thoughts:
- The Sequoia is old as hell and deserves last place
- All of these have good front/rear weight dist (as does my SRX), meaning that RWD based SUVs are inherently balanced, unlike pickups. This is great for snow.
- Best trap: 94 mph, the Nissan
- Worst trap: 87.9 mph, the Tahoe
- Best ET: 14.8, Nissan and Expedition tie
- Worst ET: 16.2, Tahoe
- My SRX performs at the top of this group in terms of acceleration (a 10 year old vehicle now) but it could not have towed the example trailer (450 lbs over)
- Best figure 8: 27.3 @ 0.65g, the Sequoia against all odds
- Worst figure 8: 28.1 @ 0.61g, the Tahoe, surprisingly small difference between best and worst actually
- Best skidpad: 0.80g, the Durango (unibody FTW)
- Worst skidpad: 0.73g, the Nissan
- Best real MPG city: 16.3 mpg, the Tahoe (maybe there is something to that 5.3L)
- Worst real MPG city: 14.4 mpg, the Sequoia
- Best real MPG highway: 25.1, mpg, the Durango
- Worst real MPG highway: 19.8 mpg, the Sequoia (the only one that didn't break 20)
- Best real MPG combined: 19.1 mpg, the Durango
- Worst real MPG combined: 16.5 mpg, the Sequoia (it's combined is about as bad as the Tahoe's city mpg)
- The Expedition w/ Ecoboost is neither the fastest (trap) nor does it get the best fuel economy. More like Ecomarketing. It does tie for best ET and 0-60. But the trap is 2.3 mph worse than the Nissan which has the same 0-60 and ET.
- Best 4700 lb towing 45-65 mph: 7.5s, the Nissan (trap speed predicted this and it held true)
- Worst 4700 lb towing 45-65 mph: 9.3s, the Tahoe (same comment)
- Best 45-65: 3.3s, Expedition (Nissan and Toyota were 3.4s)
- Worst 45-65: 4.0s, Tahoe
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/exp ... C8F9BC23EE
So here's a case where GM is on the other side. They have the more popular model but objectively it is not the better product. It does make me a little nervous because that is also a market position they took for granted until it was too late a few decades back.
The K2XX SUVs do need IRS, so I hope that is coming next gen. That will improve the ride/handling as well as the 3rd row/cargo floor height issue. The 5.3L is also outmaneuvered by the competing engines which are all the best from those parent companies. I don't know how much the 6.2L would have changed the finishing order though. Also on paper the 5.3L is perfectly competitive but I think it lacks some low end grunt. I mean it is the weakest engine here, but about the same (on paper) as the Durango w/ Hemi.
What IS kind of impressive is the Tahoe has the best predicted 5 year cost of ownership. I did not beat the Expedition by much but it did beat it. And in reality the Nissan is the only one that moves the needle into the red. A couple thousand either way over 5 years does not seem like it should be a decision-driver.
Other thoughts:
- The Sequoia is old as hell and deserves last place
- All of these have good front/rear weight dist (as does my SRX), meaning that RWD based SUVs are inherently balanced, unlike pickups. This is great for snow.
- Best trap: 94 mph, the Nissan
- Worst trap: 87.9 mph, the Tahoe
- Best ET: 14.8, Nissan and Expedition tie
- Worst ET: 16.2, Tahoe
- My SRX performs at the top of this group in terms of acceleration (a 10 year old vehicle now) but it could not have towed the example trailer (450 lbs over)
- Best figure 8: 27.3 @ 0.65g, the Sequoia against all odds
- Worst figure 8: 28.1 @ 0.61g, the Tahoe, surprisingly small difference between best and worst actually
- Best skidpad: 0.80g, the Durango (unibody FTW)
- Worst skidpad: 0.73g, the Nissan
- Best real MPG city: 16.3 mpg, the Tahoe (maybe there is something to that 5.3L)
- Worst real MPG city: 14.4 mpg, the Sequoia
- Best real MPG highway: 25.1, mpg, the Durango
- Worst real MPG highway: 19.8 mpg, the Sequoia (the only one that didn't break 20)
- Best real MPG combined: 19.1 mpg, the Durango
- Worst real MPG combined: 16.5 mpg, the Sequoia (it's combined is about as bad as the Tahoe's city mpg)
- The Expedition w/ Ecoboost is neither the fastest (trap) nor does it get the best fuel economy. More like Ecomarketing. It does tie for best ET and 0-60. But the trap is 2.3 mph worse than the Nissan which has the same 0-60 and ET.
- Best 4700 lb towing 45-65 mph: 7.5s, the Nissan (trap speed predicted this and it held true)
- Worst 4700 lb towing 45-65 mph: 9.3s, the Tahoe (same comment)
- Best 45-65: 3.3s, Expedition (Nissan and Toyota were 3.4s)
- Worst 45-65: 4.0s, Tahoe