MotorTrend 2008 Fullsize SUV Comparison Test

[GMFAN85]

Honestly, when I turned the page to this test, I immediately knew that Toyota would win. However, I am very surprised that Nissan placed second.... but then again, it produced by a Japanese automaker.


They could've been a little less obvious in their intentions. Do they honestly think readers wouldn't notice that the Tahoe was the least equipped of all the vehicles tested? It didn't come with a Nav screen (the others did) and it had the ugly silver base color for the interior.

[Olds88]

Originally Posted by Vladimir1978

All you can ask for from a comparison is that they explain their rankings, and I think they did a pretty good job of that here. I'd flip the Ford and the Chevy personally in my final rankings, but the top two are correct in my mind.

Is it the POS motor in the Sequoia, the spotty interior, horrible ride, thirst for fuel or bad transmission that you feel is better than the Chevy? The Armada's suspension falls apart after three weeks of driving and its engine isn't as durable as the Triton or Vortec V8s. It again rides like garbage.

[Olds88]

They conveniently left out the best full-size Ute on the market, the Suburban, which would embarrass all of them on room, ease of access, ride quality, fit+finish, etc.

[joemac]

If the complaint was power why not test the 2008 Tahoe with 6.2 and 6 speed auto? If ecomomy was the desire why not test the 2008 Tahoe 6.0 Two Mode Hybrid?

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by CobaltSScrazy

garbage.

CobaltSS

EDIT: waste of my time too and the market agrees with me, or at least 70% of them.

If you're going to say it's garbage, you need a better reason than "top seller". The Camry is a top seller too, does that mean it's clearly the best family sedan?

The Sequioa had, in their test, the best acceleration, the most comfortable second and third row seats, the highest tow rating, easy access to the third row, power folding third row seats, and tied for leading fuel economy.

The Armada had the best dash, the second best acceleration (well ahead of the Ford and Chevy), best braking, acceptable third row seats, the second highest tow rating, power folding third row seats, and lowest fuel economy (but the gap from best to worst was 1.5 mpg).

The Expedition had worst dashboard, better braking than Tahoe, third best acceleration, acceptable third row seats, power folding third row.

The Tahoe had worst acceleration, had a transmission that hunted for gears a lot on hills, worst access to the third row seats, only non-folding third row seats, quietest cabin at cruise, worst third row seat leg room, heavy seats to remove, and least cargo capacity behind the third row.

Now, if we were going to order them based on styling, I would reverse the order. But if styling is your first priority, buy a sports car.

What do you disagree with?

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by Olds88

They conveniently left out the best full-size Ute on the market, the Suburban, which would embarrass all of them on room, ease of access, ride quality, fit+finish, etc.

On the other hand, it begs the question - if the Suburban is so good, why bother with the Tahoe?

[spencerb]

If people didn't know how many gears their transmission has, could they really tell a difference?

At least MT mentioned how they perceive the tranny to affect driveability. Too often cars get slammed for having "only a 4-speed" or too little hp without mentioning how it performs in real life.

[member12]

Did they even take them off road? I am going to be pissed if they tested full sized SUVs and failed to mention off road capability.

If they worry so much about power, why didn't they test the 6.2L six speed? In any case, it's time for the Tahoe to have the six speed and it's time for them to update the front bumpers and color options to give the Tahoe a tougher look like the Expedition.

Nevermind....no one reads Motor Trend anymore except 12 year olds. I bet if GM told them that the Tahoe had an 8 speed they wouldn't know the difference and they'd love the truck.

[Vladimir1978]

Originally Posted by joemac

If the complaint was power why not test the 2008 Tahoe with 6.2 and 6 speed auto? If ecomomy was the desire why not test the 2008 Tahoe 6.0 Two Mode Hybrid?

Because they told Chevy what the price range of the test was, and Chevy sent them a vehicle. That's why. Blame GM for being incompetent about what they send to the test.

[Vladimir1978]

Originally Posted by Olds88

Is it the POS motor in the Sequoia, the spotty interior, horrible ride, thirst for fuel or bad transmission that you feel is better than the Chevy? The Armada's suspension falls apart after three weeks of driving and its engine isn't as durable as the Triton or Vortec V8s. It again rides like garbage.

Ah, I see the plebes have come out.

[Vladimir1978]

Originally Posted by member12

Did they even take them off road? I am going to be pissed if they tested full sized SUVs and failed to mention off road capability.

Even if they did take them off road, that portion of the test should account for very little in the overall ranking. These vehicles are SUVs in name only- they are used by the vast majority of the public as supersized minivans and should be judged as such. Because you and I both know that if someone wants an offroad vehicle, it's not a Tahoe or a Sequoia that will be purchased.

[F14CRAZY]

How does a 4 speed auto hunt? It hardly has any gears to hunt through.

Wouldn't it be more fair if they tested a 6.0L Tahoe?

[Vladimir1978]

Originally Posted by F14CRAZY

How does a 4 speed auto hunt? It hardly has any gears to hunt through.

Wouldn't it be more fair if they tested a 6.0L Tahoe?

Again, CHEVY provided the vehicle for testing. They have no one to blame but themselves.

And as far as the 4 speed is concerned, yes it can definitely hunt. In fact, I would think it would be more prone to hunting because of the larger gaps in the gearing versus a 5 or 6 speed transmission that has been programmed properly.

[Olds88]

Originally Posted by Vladimir1978

Ah, I see the plebes have come out.

I think sales volume agrees with me.

[2003SCT]

I hate Toyota and dont think that the Sequoia is particularly attractive however that acceleration time is pretty amazing for a 6,000 lb truck. Its AS quick as the regular truck....quicker in some cases. Almost nobody buys those on acceleration but wow. They really needed the 6.2 and 6 speed combo....it must jump the Tahoe into a markedly higher price point but it shouldnt....esp if the Sequoia gets the 5.7 /6 speed for anywhere near that price. THe 5.3 or the 6.2 should be cheaper to manufacture as well.


CHRIS