Few years back, I went to check out the Expedition/Navigator and Yukon/Escalade. While evaluating 3rd row ride and comfort, I noticed that the leg room and seat position of the Ford was noticeably better than GM, and the ride was also smoother. I was told that the GM twins had solid axle and the Ford's had independent rear suspension.

[1] Was that the correct explanation?
[2] Is that still the case at present? (GM-solid axle and Ford-IRS)?

Thanks,

 

google.com

I just looked it up and it took me a couple minutes tops to find your answers. When you send me a check, I'll tell you what I found

And actually drive them. Whether it is a solid axle or independent suspension, you need to drive one to decide if you prefer it.

 

GM are doing terrible in the reliability section. Go with the ford.

 

While I don't know the answer to your question I know that from driving the full size Fords and GM products I'd rather drive the GM. For overall comfort if I was hauling people and not towing a lot I would jump all over the Ford Flex. Lots of room, very smooth, and just a great overall package. If people hauling is your thing you owe it to yourself to check it out.

 

Are they? I thought the Tahoe had decent reliability.

Ford Expedition
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Reliabil...ition&trimid=-1

Chevy Tahoe
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Reliabil...odel=Tahoe#Tran

The Tahoe's one bad spot is the 4 speed auto which I believe was replaced with a 6 speed in '08 or '09.

As for the difference in ride, that might be due to the IRS. A rigid axle can ride well but IRS should, in theory be better. Do note that the basic geometry of a rigid axle is rather good for a vehicle which is relatively speaking tall and narrow. I always wounder about tire wear with tall IRS SUVs but that could be worry for nothing.

The rear space is almost certainly due to IRS. Not having to leave space for the diff and propshaft to move does help packaging.

 

What about a full sized SUV like an Armada (or Infiniti variant), or a Sequoia?

Not large enough?

 

We have owned to Suburbans since 2001. A 2001 and a 2003. Our experience totals about 200,000 miles.

From a reliability standpoint, the only issue we've had is a faulty door locking mechanism. Turned out to be electrical. Fixed under warranty. Everything else has just been routine maintenance. The current vehicle has about 150,000 miles on it. From an engineering standpoint, the intermediate steering shaft was substandard and was replaced at about the 4 1/2 year mark. Chevy paid for that even though the vehicle was out of warranty. The GM warranty might be a help, but you can duplicate it in the Ford, but I'm guessing you have to pay more. One other thing, there are dealerships that sell expended factory warranties on the net for about 60% of retail, so that can be a good way to go.

Tires seem to go about 60,000 per set. Currently running Michelins and they are much quieter with better wet traction that the top of line Bridgestones we took off. Still on the original brakes. Recommend getting the tow package. That way you get the transmission cooler and I think maybe a bigger rear anti-sway bar, etc.

Ride and drive are good. We looked hard at the Expedition, but at the time there was no extended version, so although we liked the way it drove, we opted for the larger vehicle. The Ford does have more third seat leg room and maybe a little cushier ride. Neither is a sports car and based on my limited experience with the Ford, there just isn't much real world diffrence in handling. We had ours on the Tail of the Dragon and it just wasn't that much fun. The legroom is directly attributable to the IRS. Ford also used to have an auto folding rear seat. If this is still available, that is a very nice feature. As I remember it folds flat into the foor.

Drivetrain is 100% stock. We average about 1.5 - 2.0 mpg better than our friends with Expeditions. If you go with the top line models you can step up from the 5.3 in the GM, but you take mileage hit and the 5.3 has been sufficient for us. If the new 5.0 or 6.2s are now available in the Expedition, that will probably help.

It doesn't get much better for jumping on the highway with the family, setting the cruise control and letting the miles roll by. Smooth, realitively quiet (my bet is the new ones have less wind noise) and comfortable. We have captains chairs in the first two rows and the seats are great.

My Mustang has been relatively free from problems and it has had 11 pretty hard years from the standpoint of track days, demanding use. My understanding is that Ford is building better stuff now than they were then.

My guess is that you would be happy either way. Drive them both and make the decision based on what you like to drive and be in. There probably aren't enough other considerations outside of that to worry about.

 

The Tahoe has a live rear axle and the Expedition has an IRS. No charge to you my friend.

 

http://netcarmarket.com/2009/11/2010-exped...g-capabilities/

http://autos.aol.com/cars-Chevrolet-Tahoe-.../expert-review/

 

yes you are correct in the explanation. Solid Rear Axle will ride more like a truck, also be more truck like in its capabilities. IRS will ride more like a car and have the capabilities more like a car. Also IRS will have more 3rd row legroom. I used to be a salesman at a toyota/chevy dealership. I would look at the sequoia if you are looking at SUVs in that segment it has IRS. EDIT I also forgot IRS allows for fold flat rear seats. Tahoes you have to remove, its a PITA.