New Ford Expedition

[Rupert]

That occurred to me right after I posted that.

[GoCougs]

It's also mega refined, and I'm pretty sure it out tows the 4Runner.

Yes, the Tahoe is up market from the 4Runner in terms of (relative) luxury - comfort, ride, road noise - and it is noticeable.

[MX793]

Tahoe is kind of a size class up, isn't it?  It's like a foot longer with half a foot more wheelbase.  4Runner is more an Explorer competitor.  Closer to what the Trailblazer was.

[GoCougs]

Whoa, really? Seems excessive.

Well in the first few years, it was the exact opposite - it was actually down 10 hp vs. the V6 (235 hp vs. 245 hp). And then the automakers got hit with reratings and the V6 readjusted to 236 hp and then the V8 was upgraded slightly to 260 hp. Thing was, the V8 was never quicker, so it didn't do anything for the truck other than of course sound better, be smoother and drink more fuel. Terrible product planning by Toyota.

I've always liked the 4Runner, and its reliability is second to none, but to me the premium pricing is hard to swallow with such ho-hum powertrains. Jesus, GM had the same 270 hp some 15 years ago in the POS TrailBlazer. Even so, if I had to buy a legit midsize SUV today, it would be a 4Runner.

[Rupert]

It's a better proposition new vs. used. IIRC, the new price is in line with the rest of the segment. Used prices are stupid, of course.

[Lebowski]

I have always liked the Tahoe/Yukon but I've also always had sticker shock anytime I have priced one out on their website. They can get up to ~$70k+ and the Escalades can get within spitting distance of $100k (I've never liked the escapade much, too blingy and I think the Tahoe and Yukon look better).  I am amazed how many I see on the road given the price.


I understand it's a class up from the 4Runner, but the price difference has always seemed surprising to me.  I wouldn't cross shop them per se due to the size difference, but at the same time they've been two of my favorite SUVs so the comparison is sorta inevitable.

[MX793]

Well in the first few years, it was the exact opposite - it was actually down 10 hp vs. the V6 (235 hp vs. 245 hp). And then the automakers got hit with reratings and the V6 readjusted to 236 hp and then the V8 was upgraded slightly to 260 hp. Thing was, the V8 was never quicker, so it didn't do anything for the truck other than of course sound better, be smoother and drink more fuel. Terrible product planning by Toyota.

I've always liked the 4Runner, and its reliability is second to none, but to me the premium pricing is hard to swallow with such ho-hum powertrains. Jesus, GM had the same 270 hp some 15 years ago in the POS TrailBlazer. Even so, if I had to buy a legit midsize SUV today, it would be a 4Runner.

V8 4Runner was rated to tow 2000 lbs more than the V6.

[BimmerM3]

It's a better proposition new vs. used. IIRC, the new price is in line with the rest of the segment. Used prices are stupid, of course.

Yeah this. Hopefully the Explorer will last me long enough that I can afford a new 4Runner.

[Rupert]

That's part of the reason I went with the XTerra. Seems like it's about as reliable and long-lasting, much cheaper.

[68_427]

.

I've always liked the 4Runner, and its reliability is second to none, but to me the premium pricing is hard to swallow with such ho-hum powertrains. Jesus, GM had the same 270 hp some 15 years ago in the POS TrailBlazer. Even so, if I had to buy a legit midsize SUV today, it would be a 4Runner.

The Atlas actually got upgraded to 292hp for 2006 I think

[12,000 RPM]

Yeah, you get totally murdered on the other end of the transaction too.

Just blows my mind people load up Tahoes to $70k.  Is it twice the vehicle of a 4Runner?  Not at all.

I was gonna say towing but it's only 1600 more lbs

Let GM make its money

[BimmerM3]

That's part of the reason I went with the XTerra. Seems like it's about as reliable and long-lasting, much cheaper.

For sure. It makes me sad that they discontinued it. There aren't many options left for proper 4x4s anymore.

[MX793]

The Atlas actually got upgraded to 292hp for 2006 I think

Yeah, GM was ahead of the curve on powertrain with the GMT350.  Consider that the explorer had either a 200 HP V6 or 240 HP V8.  Durango was a larger vehicle, but other than the 5.7 Hemi, the lower trim engines were similarly lackluster.

[BimmerM3]

Yeah, GM was ahead of the curve on powertrain with the GMT350.  Consider that the explorer had either a 200 HP V6 or 240 HP V8.  Durango was a larger vehicle, but other than the 5.7 Hemi, the lower trim engines were similarly lackluster.

2006 Explorer V8 has 292hp/300lb-ft.

But yeah, that V6 is not awesome.

[93JC]

The GM Atlas straight-six was a great engine on paper and it performed pretty well in those trucks, but its greatest problem was that it was engineered pretty much exclusively for those GMT360 trucks, which were otherwise mediocre as fuck. It was a colossal waste of money on GM's part to design and build a six-cylinder engine that didn't go in anything else. It wouldn't fit in anything else!

[giant_mtb]

I did like the engine in the Trailblazer.  That was such a good cruiser. 

[Eye of the Tiger]

People think Trailblazers are the beez neez. I work on a ton of them. O think it's a stupid design.

[68_427]

The GM Atlas straight-six was a great engine on paper and it performed pretty well in those trucks, but its greatest problem was that it was engineered pretty much exclusively for those GMT360 trucks, which were otherwise mediocre as fuck. It was a colossal waste of money on GM's part to design and build a six-cylinder engine that didn't go in anything else. It wouldn't fit in anything else!

The I4 and I5 in the Colorado/Canyon/H3 were all based on the Atlas architecture and most internals are the same

[giant_mtb]

People think Trailblazers are the beez neez. I work on a ton of them. O think it's a stupid design.

Anything can be great if you're not the one stuck working on it.

The 6-cyl was torquey, relatively fuel efficient, and the vehicle as a whole just ran really smoothly, both from a mechanical and NVH perspective.

[Morris Minor]

My 28-year-old son is ranging around for an SUV to replace the elderly Pilot. I told him to buy a new 4-Runner and keep it till he's at least 40. It'll handle snow & expeditions to northern New England, has enough room for kiddies, is small enough not to daunt his wife, and is reliable.

[MrH]

My 28-year-old son is ranging around for an SUV to replace the elderly Pilot. I told him to buy a new 4-Runner and keep it till he's at least 40. It'll handle snow & expeditions to northern New England, has enough room for kiddies, is small enough not to daunt his wife, and is reliable.

Yes! I love mine. Only downside is the gas mileage. It's not so much the cost of the gas as it is the frequency of going to the gas station.

He can drive it for 12 years and still get half his value back on it they don't depreciate

[GoCougs]

V8 4Runner was rated to tow 2000 lbs more than the V6.

That's much more about hitch style, cooling, etc. Lots of weezy sub 200 hp commercial diesel rigs out there running around with as high or higher two ratings. My hunch is Toyota had a more potent V8 planned but something happened - emissions, budgets, etc., threw a wrench into the works.

[GoCougs]

Yeah, GM was ahead of the curve on powertrain with the GMT350.  Consider that the explorer had either a 200 HP V6 or 240 HP V8.  Durango was a larger vehicle, but other than the 5.7 Hemi, the lower trim engines were similarly lackluster.

On power, but on architecture, it hurt GM a lot.

Circa 2002 the Japanese Big 3 were on their way to using a single V6 family across all platforms, and there's GM spending billions $$$ on single use motors, esp. a straight six which is big and heavy.

[MX793]

Atlas was a whole family of engines, including 4 and 5 cylinder variants.  While I wouldn't call it a glowing success story since they completely tossed the Atlas family after 10 years, they got more mileage out of the architecture than just the GMT360s.  GMT355 used the 4 and 5 cylinder versions and were global products.

[93JC]

The I4 and I5 in the Colorado/Canyon/H3 were all based on the Atlas architecture and most internals are the same

Atlas was a whole family of engines, including 4 and 5 cylinder variants.  While I wouldn't call it a glowing success story since they completely tossed the Atlas family after 10 years, they got more mileage out of the architecture than just the GMT360s.  GMT355 used the 4 and 5 cylinder versions and were global products.

Oh I know Atlas ended up being an entire family of four, five and six-cylinder engines. That's the funniest part of the calamity that was that product planning. Do you know why the five-cylinder engine even existed?

Because the six-cylinder was too long to fit the GMT355 trucks! They engineered a five-cylinder version of the block because they fucked up their own product planning so badly that the GMT355 chassis couldn't accommodate the six-cylinder. And yeah, the GMT355 trucks were a global product, but the Atlas I4 and I5 were not: the overseas versions of the truck, mostly built in Thailand by Isuzu and GM's subsidiaries there, used Isuzu diesels. They never used the Atlas engines, the Atlas engines were a North American exclusive. When the product planners in Australia wanted to put a six-cylinder gasser in their version of the truck guess what they threw under the hood?








The 3.6 L V6 the current Colorado uses. :|


They tripled-down on the stupidity that was the Atlas I6 and designed a custom I5 engine to fit their compact pickups, which their chassis development partner wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole, and a custom I4 for the same series of compact pickups... which Isuzu still wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole!

[GoCougs]

Atlas was a whole family of engines, including 4 and 5 cylinder variants.  While I wouldn't call it a glowing success story since they completely tossed the Atlas family after 10 years, they got more mileage out of the architecture than just the GMT360s.  GMT355 used the 4 and 5 cylinder versions and were global products.

Yes, I know, and those were a bad idea too. On the surface seems like a great idea to share pistons, rods, valves, springs, etc., across many engines, but GM would have been much better off doing what they (and everyone else) is doing now - sharing V6 and I4 across many platforms, as two engines are way more economical than three.