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 (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 (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 (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!
How come you had the Suburban and Tahoe in the same comparo? Doesnt look good for the Chevys, a 5, 6 finish :lol:
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
'Kay, now I'm going to peek.
Looked at 5-6: so far I'm right.
Ooooooh, 4th goes to Expedition... Kind of a toss up between Durango and Expedition, but I still think Expedition is better.
Ho-ly, a Toyota in THIRD?!?!
Blasphemy!! Blasphemy I say!!
QuoteHo-ly, a Toyota in THIRD?!?!
Blasphemy!! Blasphemy I say!!
:lol:
Durango in FIRST?!
Oh well, never accused you of having a taste for anything beyond vehicles with "good feature content"... :P
QuoteBefore 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. :lol:
So why exactly did you give the Durango the mercy win?
QuoteSo 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?
Probably Expedition. I don't really care for any of them though.
QuoteHow come you had the Suburban and Tahoe in the same comparo? Doesnt look good for the Chevys, a 5, 6 finish :lol:
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).
QuoteQuoteHow come you had the Suburban and Tahoe in the same comparo? Doesnt look good for the Chevys, a 5, 6 finish :lol:
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.
The Sequoia should be first! :angry:
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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote
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.
QuoteQuote
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.
QuoteQuoteQuote
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.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
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.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
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.
I think even when compared to its competitors the Expedition has a good interior, better than all but the Durango imho.
Do you mean based on quality, or space/comfort?
QuoteDo you mean based on quality, or space/comfort?
Quality and design.
QuoteQuoteDo 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.
QuoteQuoteQuoteDo 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).
QuoteQuoteQuoteDo 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:
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDo 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:
No, but they are higher quality than the others.
I disagree there as well. Most of the dash is fine, the rest of the interior is not.
ifcar has a sensitive butt.
QuoteQuoteI 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.
No you're right, I was reading the wrong page when I formed my misunderstanding. :blink:
The only other issue I have is the comments regarding the Sequioa's ride. When I tested these trucks the Sequoia rode better than the Tahoe, Expedition and Armada (didn't drive the Durango). Unless Nissan changed something from the 2004 it was pretty bumpy. The Expy was real jittery and the IRS didn't seem to offer any advantage. The Tahoe wasn't bad. That being said, even if the Sequoia was a little worse ride-wise I still would have got it because I do prefer the solid axle. The soft suspension with the solid axle really handle well off road while at the same time offer consistent ground clearance that IRS doesn't. I have no idea why Toyota's tow ratings are low. The Sequoia has a fully boxed frame and pretty good torque. Though towing wasn't much of an issue for me since anything I would tow is sub 5000lb. The Sequoia's suspension is tuned more for ride so maybe that's the reason. I wouldn't be surprised if Toyota tuned for ride over towing since most people never tow much.
Just out of curiousity, do you actually offroad with your Sequioa? Anyway, I don't understand all of the complaints about the Expedition's ride, it seemed pretty good to me and was much better than the bobbing of the Suburban/Tahoe.
I don't off road regurlarly just a couple times a year we go exploring when we go up to Moosehead Lake in ME. As soon as the OEM tires go I'm putting on some all terrain ones. The stock tires suck.
QuoteI don't off road regurlarly just a couple times a year we go exploring when we go up to Moosehead Lake in ME. As soon as the OEM tires go I'm putting on some all terrain ones. The stock tires suck.
What type are you thinking about putting on?
QuoteQuoteI don't off road regurlarly just a couple times a year we go exploring when we go up to Moosehead Lake in ME. As soon as the OEM tires go I'm putting on some all terrain ones. The stock tires suck.
What type are you thinking about putting on?
I've heard good things about Bridgestone Dueler Revo.
(http://www.bridgestonetire.com/tireselector/dpp/glamour/tirephotos_full/dueleratrevo.jpg)
QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't off road regurlarly just a couple times a year we go exploring when we go up to Moosehead Lake in ME.? As soon as the OEM tires go I'm putting on some all terrain ones.? The stock tires suck.
What type are you thinking about putting on?
I've heard good things about Bridgestone Dueler Revo.
(http://www.bridgestonetire.com/tireselector/dpp/glamour/tirephotos_full/dueleratrevo.jpg)
Cool. :)