IFCAR Comparo: Full-Size SUVs

[ifcar]

Most of you probably remember the most recent IFCAR comparo (ultra-luxury sedans), and here's the full-size SUV group:

http://ifcar.net/reviews.comparisons.largesuvs.htm

Vehicles included:
Chevrolet Suburban 1500 LS
Chevrolet Tahoe LT
Dodge Durango Limited 5.7
Ford Expedition Eddie Bauer
Nissan Armada SE
Toyota Sequoia SR5

Before you bring it up, I am aware that the review is still a bit rough around the edges, with some data missing. However, none of it should be critical to the review (I believe only the features added to the vehicle, and I haven't decided whether I need to include pictures of the vehicles), but if it is, just ask and I'll find the info. Many links outside of the comparison do not work, but everything important to the comparison itself should.

If you have questions, please ask. If you disagree with anything, please bring it up for an INTELLIGENT debate (IE not "Well, I thought this should have been in first place, and I saw another comparison that agrees with me, so you're wrong.") If you see errors (in either content or with the site) please let me know.

If this is the first time you've come across an IFCAR comparo, you can check out the other five at http://ifcar.net/reviews.comparisons.htm. Also, I've recently been phasing in the standard Reviews section of this site, and have worked through compact and subcompact sedans, and you can take a look at those here http://ifcar.net/reviews.all.htm.

BTW, it costs money to run a site, so if viewers could please click on a few ads, I'd appreciate it.

And enjoy!

[BMWDave]

How come you had the Suburban and Tahoe in the same comparo?  Doesnt look good for the Chevys, a 5, 6 finish

[93JC]

Before I look at it, my guesses on how you ranked 'em:

1. Toyota Sequoia
2. Nissan Armada
3. Ford Expedition
4. Dodge Durango
5 & 6. The Chevies

[93JC]

'Kay, now I'm going to peek.

[93JC]

Looked at 5-6: so far I'm right.

[93JC]

Ooooooh, 4th goes to Expedition... Kind of a toss up between Durango and Expedition, but I still think Expedition is better.

[93JC]

Ho-ly, a Toyota in THIRD?!?!

Blasphemy!! Blasphemy I say!!

[BMWDave]

Ho-ly, a Toyota in THIRD?!?!

Blasphemy!! Blasphemy I say!!

 

[93JC]

Durango in FIRST?!

Oh well, never accused you of having a taste for anything beyond vehicles with "good feature content"... :P

[ifcar]

Before I look at it, my guesses on how you ranked 'em:

1. Toyota Sequoia
2. Nissan Armada
3. Ford Expedition
4. Dodge Durango
5 & 6. The Chevies

One for six isn't too bad.    

[93JC]

So why exactly did you give the Durango the mercy win?

[ifcar]

So why exactly did you give the Durango the mercy win?

Read and find out.  

BTW, what do you mean by "mercy win"? I know C/D also put it in first place, and I'm pretty sure at least one other comparo (MT, maybe?) did as well. I think basically everyone liked it but CR. And you.

What would have been your top choice?

[93JC]

Probably Expedition. I don't really care for any of them though.

[ifcar]

How come you had the Suburban and Tahoe in the same comparo?  Doesnt look good for the Chevys, a 5, 6 finish

The Tahoe is less expensive but smaller, the Suburban is more expensive but larger. They're different enough to both get in there; I was even going to include different engine options, but none of them had multiple engine options that fit into the criteria anyway (Tahoe 4.8 is RWD only, Durango 4.7 was too inexpensive).  

[BMWDave]

How come you had the Suburban and Tahoe in the same comparo?  Doesnt look good for the Chevys, a 5, 6 finish

The Tahoe is less expensive but smaller, the Suburban is more expensive but larger. They're different enough to both get in there; I was even going to include different engine options, but none of them had multiple engine options that fit into the criteria anyway (Tahoe 4.8 is RWD only, Durango 4.7 was too inexpensive).

I see.

[Catman]

The Sequoia should be first! :angry:  

[Catman]

I considered the Armada when it first came out but decided against it since it was unproven.  That decision was a good one.  The first year was riddled with quality issues.

ifcar, the only issue I have with your test is when you say the Tahoe has a btter third row than the Sequoia.  When I was shopping I found the Sequoia much better in that regard.

[TBR]

I considered the Armada when it first came out but decided against it since it was unproven.  That decision was a good one.  The first year was riddled with quality issues.

ifcar, the only issue I have with your test is when you say the Tahoe has a btter third row than the Sequoia.  When I was shopping I found the Sequoia much better in that regard.

He said that it was one of the worst, but not the worst

As for the rest of the test:
Finally, one that I agree with, mostly anyway. I think the Expedition should have placed over the Sequioa for its extra towing capacity, better handling, and fold flat 3rd row.

[ifcar]

I considered the Armada when it first came out but decided against it since it was unproven.  That decision was a good one.  The first year was riddled with quality issues.

ifcar, the only issue I have with your test is when you say the Tahoe has a btter third row than the Sequoia.  When I was shopping I found the Sequoia much better in that regard.

Unless I made a typo or made something unclear, I said several times that the Tahoe had the worst third row in the test. I know it's shown on the Evaluations page as well.

[ifcar]

As for the rest of the test:
Finally, one that I agree with, mostly anyway. I think the Expedition should have placed over the Sequioa for its extra towing capacity, better handling, and fold flat 3rd row.

Thanks. The Expedition would have beaten it easily if Ford had bothered to design the front and middle-row seats with human comfort in mind, but as it happened, the Sequoia's were just much better-shaped. The Sequoia also had it beat for power and refinement, though the two were VERY close; their positions switched several times while the order was being determined.

[TBR]

As for the rest of the test:
Finally, one that I agree with, mostly anyway. I think the Expedition should have placed over the Sequioa for its extra towing capacity, better handling, and fold flat 3rd row.

Thanks. The Expedition would have beaten it easily if Ford had bothered to design the front and middle-row seats with human comfort in mind, but as it happened, the Sequoia's were just much better-shaped. The Sequoia also had it beat for power and refinement, though the two were VERY close; their positions switched several times while the order was being determined.

Did the Expedition have a 2nd row bench or buckets? I went to AR in a '03 Eddie Baur model with buckets and found them quite comfortable, much better than the rear bench for sure.

[ifcar]

As for the rest of the test:
Finally, one that I agree with, mostly anyway. I think the Expedition should have placed over the Sequioa for its extra towing capacity, better handling, and fold flat 3rd row.

Thanks. The Expedition would have beaten it easily if Ford had bothered to design the front and middle-row seats with human comfort in mind, but as it happened, the Sequoia's were just much better-shaped. The Sequoia also had it beat for power and refinement, though the two were VERY close; their positions switched several times while the order was being determined.

Did the Expedition have a 2nd row bench or buckets? I went to AR in a '03 Eddie Baur model with buckets and found them quite comfortable, much better than the rear bench for sure.

Buckets. As I said in the review, they're not high enough, they're too flat, and they're too hard. Plenty of room, but that's the only positive thing I can say about them.

[TBR]

As for the rest of the test:
Finally, one that I agree with, mostly anyway. I think the Expedition should have placed over the Sequioa for its extra towing capacity, better handling, and fold flat 3rd row.

Thanks. The Expedition would have beaten it easily if Ford had bothered to design the front and middle-row seats with human comfort in mind, but as it happened, the Sequoia's were just much better-shaped. The Sequoia also had it beat for power and refinement, though the two were VERY close; their positions switched several times while the order was being determined.

Did the Expedition have a 2nd row bench or buckets? I went to AR in a '03 Eddie Baur model with buckets and found them quite comfortable, much better than the rear bench for sure.

Buckets. As I said in the review, they're not high enough, they're too flat, and they're too hard. Plenty of room, but that's the only positive thing I can say about them.

hm, I thought they were fine but I apparantly have lower standards than you do since I think the rest of the interior is also fine.  

[ifcar]

As for the rest of the test:
Finally, one that I agree with, mostly anyway. I think the Expedition should have placed over the Sequioa for its extra towing capacity, better handling, and fold flat 3rd row.

Thanks. The Expedition would have beaten it easily if Ford had bothered to design the front and middle-row seats with human comfort in mind, but as it happened, the Sequoia's were just much better-shaped. The Sequoia also had it beat for power and refinement, though the two were VERY close; their positions switched several times while the order was being determined.

Did the Expedition have a 2nd row bench or buckets? I went to AR in a '03 Eddie Baur model with buckets and found them quite comfortable, much better than the rear bench for sure.

Buckets. As I said in the review, they're not high enough, they're too flat, and they're too hard. Plenty of room, but that's the only positive thing I can say about them.

hm, I thought they were fine but I apparantly have lower standards than you do since I think the rest of the interior is also fine.

Most current vehicles are fine if viewed only by themselves, typically falling short mostly (in some cases, only) when looked at directly against their competitors. Some could call it being spoiled by the other vehicles, but IMO it's the only way to accurately assess anything: determine whether each aspect is better or worse than something else that is trying to do the same thing.

[TBR]

I think even when compared to its competitors the Expedition has a good interior, better than all but the Durango imho.  

[ifcar]

Do you mean based on quality, or space/comfort?

[TBR]

Do you mean based on quality, or space/comfort?

Quality and design.

[ifcar]

Do you mean based on quality, or space/comfort?

Quality and design.

I completely disagree on both counts. Design is subjective, but I find it both bland and outdated, almost to the level of the GM trucks. And quality is less subjective, and every Exped I've been in had low-quality plastics, excessive panel gaps, and at least one example of misaligned trim.

[TBR]

Do you mean based on quality, or space/comfort?

Quality and design.

I completely disagree on both counts. Design is subjective, but I find it both bland and outdated, almost to the level of the GM trucks. And quality is less subjective, and every Exped I've been in had low-quality plastics, excessive panel gaps, and at least one example of misaligned trim.

I have never noticed any misalignments, but I agree that the materials could be better, however, I think they are better than all of the vehicles in this class except for the Durango (essentially, all of these vehicles could use a lot better materials).

[ifcar]

Do you mean based on quality, or space/comfort?

Quality and design.

I completely disagree on both counts. Design is subjective, but I find it both bland and outdated, almost to the level of the GM trucks. And quality is less subjective, and every Exped I've been in had low-quality plastics, excessive panel gaps, and at least one example of misaligned trim.

Wait, you also think that the DURANGO has hq materials?  :blink: