[stewacide]

The Escalade is hyper-weak 'cause it's just a badge swap (like this Saab):

Navi' vs. Expedition:

Escalade vs. Tahoe

Plus of course the Navi' has IRS (how could that be worse than the Escalades solid axel?) and proper OHC engines (again, NO WAY the Escalade is as refined).

There's 100% no reason to pay more for the Escalade than the Tahoe - you could just buy an aftermarket grill and trim pieces and voila! And Escalade!

 

[gerardo_zg]

Please read the comparison between the Cadillac Escalade, Lincoln Navigator and Mercedez-Benz M500. I'm sure that will leave all your complaints satisfied.

 

[SUPERBADD75]

Anyway, GM has the Caddy SRX to compete with the volvo. and the SRX comes with a quality V8 right out of the box.

what do you expect the 9-7X to compete with? is there just some magical group of people that is supposed to jump out of the woodwork and buy these things? the 9-7X is going directly into a very competitive market, and you made note of another stupid move by GM... the new "SAAB" will compete against GM's own SRX. the luxury SUV market has a number of compelling choices, and most are better than a tarted up Trailblazer. suspension tuning, "premium" leather, whatever you call it, it still reeks of GMT-360. there is not enough of a difference between the 9-7 and a Trailblazer to charge 40-something grand for it. they moved the ignition. hmm... oh, and it has some neat looking wheels, and a 9-5 cupholder in the dash. wow, a 3 part grill, like the other SAABs have. what makes it so special? the people buying these things want a smooth, car-like ride and refinement, and from what we're seeing about this thing, they'll get neither. not to mention that SAAB is losing its identity (this will make 2 models now that have no turbos), and is really alienating a lot of the people who are loyal customers of what the brand was... not what it's becoming. an SUV for SAAB is not necessarily a good idea in the first place, but i guess if Porsche did it, it's not the worst idea either. however, in my opinion (and i'd bet many SAAB customer's opinions as well) using a Trailblazer for the basis of it is. if GM wants to compete against the big boys from Europe and Japan, they'd better pay a little closer attention to what those guys are doing.



:zap:
XC90 9-7X

 

[ReD-DaWg-OnE]

Originally posted by stewacide@Jun 19 2004, 05:55 PM
And the Yamaha engine will be a gleaming alloy work of art, with every bit of tech they can think to throw at it. Sure it'll cost more, but it's no doubt the superior engine. The TrailBlazer is barely competative in its class - how is it going to do against BMW, MB, etc in Saab clothing!?!

What the crap? You are saying an engine is superior and it hasn’t even been invented yet? How can something be better then something else if it doesn’t exist?

 

[saugatak]

Stewacide, I like the Navigator better than the Escalade b/c I love the Navigator's interior, but there is NO WAY that the Navigator's engine is better than GM's pushrod.

Have you ever seen the size of Ford's DOHC v8s and SOHC Triton V8s? Compared to the 5.3L, 5.7L and 5.8L v8s of GMs, they're huge. Plus, the pushrods make power much lower in the powerband, so have a lot more useful power.

And compare the gas mileage. GM's pushrods don't need to rev as high to generage power so they save on gas.

The only advantage that Ford's OHC v8s have is NVH, because they do sound more refined, but that is the ONLY advantage.

 

[MelvinJ]

Originally posted by saugatak@Jun 21 2004, 10:14 AM
Stewacide, I like the Navigator better than the Escalade b/c I love the Navigator's interior, but there is NO WAY that the Navigator's engine is better than GM's pushrod.

Have you ever seen the size of Ford's DOHC v8s and SOHC Triton V8s? Compared to the 5.3L, 5.7L and 5.8L v8s of GMs, they're huge. Plus, the pushrods make power much lower in the powerband, so have a lot more useful power.

And compare the gas mileage. GM's pushrods don't need to rev as high to generage power so they save on gas.

The only advantage that Ford's OHC v8s have is NVH, because they do sound more refined, but that is the ONLY advantage.

I don't even agree with the NVH arguement. Read any test of an Expedition vs. a Tahoe/Suburban, and the GM V8 is more refined. Ford's SOHC V8 is about the least refined on the market, and since the the DOHC in the Nav is basically the same engine (with even more moving parts), I don't see how it's any better. It's another case of attributing refinement to DOHC, when it has little, if nothing, to do with it. It's simply building an engine right, with good balance, low tolorances, and good isolation.

I've read in several tests (C&D, Aug 2002, I think is one) that the GM V8 almost matches the Lexus derived DOHC V8 in the Toyota trucks (and has more power and better mileage). Ford trucks never get good marks for engine refinement.

 

[Hudson]

Originally posted by stewacide@Jun 20 2004, 12:34 AM
The M-class will soon be dead, to be replaced by a unibody crossover. The new Discovery, while still technically BoF, is infinitely more refined than the last (getting the Jag' v8, etc.) and is an actual off-roader anyways.

Spec-wise he only thing the 9-7x will be competeing with is the Aviator, which is a far deeper makeover than this "Saab" (with an entirely different interior and suspension components than the Explorer, which is already newer and more refined than this GM platform). And the Aviator hasn't been competeing that well anyways.

Please don't take this as me jumping on the "bash Stewie" band wagon, but what is your definition of "crossover?" What makes the current M-Class better than the next-generation?

 

[stewacide]

It's no secret the Navi' has less horsepower (look at the specs!). However these are supposed to be luxury vehicles, so smoothness and refinement should be priority #1. There's simply no way GMs engineers are so wonderful and Ford's so bad that the old, mass-market 16 valve GM v8 is smoother than the new, designed-for-lincoln 32 valve Ford w/ timing. The Navi' is also getting the Jag' 6-speed auto next year, which should put even more distance betwen it and the Cadi'.

Only on this site could stateing the Navigator is superior to the Escalade have people jumping all over you

 

[stewacide]

Originally posted by Hudson+Jun 21 2004, 03:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hudson @ Jun 21 2004, 03:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-stewacide@Jun 20 2004, 12:34 AM
The M-class will soon be dead, to be replaced by a unibody crossover. The new Discovery, while still technically BoF, is infinitely more refined than the last (getting the Jag' v8, etc.) and is an actual off-roader anyways.

Spec-wise he only thing the 9-7x will be competeing with is the Aviator, which is a far deeper makeover than this "Saab" (with an entirely different interior and suspension components than the Explorer, which is already newer and more refined than this GM platform). And the Aviator hasn't been competeing that well anyways.

Please don't take this as me jumping on the "bash Stewie" band wagon, but what is your definition of "crossover?" What makes the current M-Class better than the next-generation? [/b][/quote]
I'm saying the next will be better (except probably off-road, where nobody takes it) because it's moving to unibody construction. Lighter, better ride, better space utilization, etc. According to the thread on top of this one they'll be both an SUV and a MPV on the same platform.

As for the difference between a crossover, unibody-SUV, and MPV, who the hell knows anymore. I doubt, however, this Merc' will be a true off-roader unibody in the veign of the Range Rover or Grand Cherokee.

 

[GM_Guy81]

Its clear you dont know much about engines, because you are apparently an automotive elitiest who condemns GM engines because they are pushrod while touting DOHC as the end all of engine dom. And here I though I only had to argue with people like you at Autoweeks forums. Although there it usually takes place concerning the Corvettes engine. Have you driven an Escalade? It seems to me the problem here is that you are basing your opinions on what you think they should be by mechanical specs, rather than what they are.

Like saying the Navy is better because of IRS, when several mags have said that the escalade handes and rides better, and saying the engine MUST be smoother because its and DOHC. I have driven both, the Navy rides like a boat. The escalade has a much tighter ride. As far as them being luxury segments, I think people would take the MUCH more powerful engine, especially since even though it might not be smoother, the difference is barely detectable.

I think your just bitter because the Escalade sells so much better since this design came out.

 

[stewacide]

That Motor Trend comparison is of the old Navigator vs. the Escalade, both of which were lame badge-jobs. Show me where any magazine says the 2004 Navigator is in any way inferior to the 2004 Escalade?

The last 2004 Escalade review I've seen was on Top Gear, and to quote them: "the last time I felt plastic this cheap it had tic-tacs inside" :lol:

 

[MelvinJ]

Originally posted by stewacide@Jun 21 2004, 04:00 PM
It's no secret the Navi' has less horsepower (look at the specs!). However these are supposed to be luxury vehicles, so smoothness and refinement should be priority #1. There's simply no way GMs engineers are so wonderful and Ford's so bad that the old, mass-market 16 valve GM v8 is smoother than the new, designed-for-lincoln 32 valve Ford w/ timing. The Navi' is also getting the Jag' 6-speed auto next year, which should put even more distance betwen it and the Cadi'.

Only on this site could stateing the Navigator is superior to the Escalade have people jumping all over you

GM's old mass market 16V V8 is in it's eighth model year. Ford's new designed-for-Lincoln 32-valve w/timing dates it's basic architecture back at least a dozen years to the introduction of the 4.6L modular V8. If you want to talk specific variants, the Escalade's LQ9 came out in 2002, Ford's Intech 5.4 came out in the late 90's. No matter how you slice it, the old vs. new arguement you made makes no sense.

Your arguement about refinement being more important than performance probably rings true for Lincoln buyers - they're certainly not there for the power like Cadillac buyers, but I still challenge you to find anything published that says the Navigator's engine is more refined than the Escalade's. I looked, couldn't find any. Maybe BlueOvalNews did a test and said it was better....

The 6-speed coming next year still won't make up for the power deficit of the Navigator. It might help out it's pathetic mileage, which is 1 mpg less city/highway due to it's inefficient engine than the much more powerful Escalade . Lincoln's much smaller Aviator with the weaker still 4.6L Intech gets the same mileage as the Escalade.

If the quality of the Navigator is so high, I find it odd that it's never scored higher than 2 out of 5 stars in the JD Power IQS since it's redesign, while the Excalade got a 3 stars in 2003 and 4 stars in 2004. Maybe that's why they sell about 30% more Escalades than Navigators, and that doesn't include the EXT and ESV.

 

[gerardo_zg]

Originally posted by stewacide@Jun 21 2004, 10:15 AM
That Motor Trend comparison is of the old Navigator vs. the Escalade, both of which were lame badge-jobs. Show me where any magazine says the 2004 Navigator is in any way inferior to the 2004 Escalade?

The last 2004 Escalade review I've seen was on Top Gear, and to quote them: "the last time I felt plastic this cheap it had tic-tacs inside" :lol:

Motor Trend June 2002 :

2003 Lincoln Navigator vs. Escalade and ML500

 

[Hudson]

Originally posted by MelvinJ@Jun 21 2004, 01:06 PM
GM's old mass market 16V V8 is in it's eighth model year. Ford's new designed-for-Lincoln 32-valve w/timing dates it's basic architecture back at least a dozen years to the introduction of the 4.6L modular V8....

If you're going to argue, argue apples-to-apples.

GM's engine can trace its heritage back to 1955 (yes, there is a direct connection even though it's been updated many, many times). The 5.4L in the Lincoln can only trace its history back to 1992, even though the 5.4L is significantly different from the 4.6L you're comparing it to.

Using another method of comparison, the 6.0L in the Escalade is only about two years newer than the Navigator's DOHC 5.4L.

 

[MelvinJ]

Originally posted by Hudson@Jun 21 2004, 08:49 PM


GM's engine can trace its heritage back to 1955 (yes, there is a direct connection even though it's been updated many, many times). The 5.4L in the Lincoln can only trace its history back to 1992, even though the 5.4L is significantly different from the 4.6L you're comparing it to.

No, no, no. The third gen V8 shares it's 4.4 inch. bore spacing. That is absolutely it. The Gen II's could definitely be traced back to the original small block. Gen 3 - clean sheet of paper in 1997.

Anyone else care to weigh in on this?

 

[saugatak]

If you check out idavette.net, they have links on the development of the LS1 and LS6 engines for the Corvette, which are the basis for all of GM's pushrod v8s.

I don't know how you can knock pushrod v8s. The LS6 makes 405 HP, 400 ft.lb. of torque and is small enough to fit into a Corvette or the Caddy CTS-V.

Other than the v8 in the e39 BMW M5, which makes 394HP, there is not a single OHC v8 that can compete with the LS engines.

The next LS engine in the Corvette, the LS2, makes 400HP and 400 ft.lb. torque and has displacement of 6.0L, yet it's still small enough to fit into the redesigned Corvette, which is smaller than the previous generation Corvette.

What's not to like? Great power, great low end torque, great gas mileage (Corvette gets 30mpg), and the engine is pretty cheap.

Stewacide, you can argue until you're blue in the face, but you can't argue against performance like that.

 

[gmwsag]

The Escalade sells much better because more rappers are using it each and every single day. Despite the fact that H2's and 300C's have slowed Escalade's down a little bit, everything is going well.
The Navigator and Escalade are badge jobs. Quick ways to get stuff done, and so is the 9-7x. Saab will replace the 9-7x with its 'own unique' form of an SUV. They just wanted to get an SUV out on the market quick because they were losing owners to SUV's.

Crossover definition: An SUV that looks like a wagon, lower to the ground, seating 5 passengers or more, and it is just another way to say 'gas guzzling SUV' in terms some people just don't understand....

 

[MelvinJ]

Originally posted by gmwsag@Jun 22 2004, 01:38 PM
The Escalade sells much better because more rappers are using it each and every single day. Despite the fact that H2's and 300C's have slowed Escalade's down a little bit, everything is going well.
The Navigator and Escalade are badge jobs. Quick ways to get stuff done, and so is the 9-7x. Saab will replace the 9-7x with its 'own unique' form of an SUV. They just wanted to get an SUV out on the market quick because they were losing owners to SUV's.

Crossover definition: An SUV that looks like a wagon, lower to the ground, seating 5 passengers or more, and it is just another way to say 'gas guzzling SUV' in terms some people just don't understand....

Yes, rappers are entirely responsible for the Escalade's success! :lol:

I don't think anyone can give crossover's a very precise definition, but I must say that many of them get gas mileage that's barely lower than comparably sized station wagon, because that's pretty much what they are - station wagons that sit up a bit higher.