Amid the industry’s booming sales of compact wagonoids on stilts,
domestic full-size SUVs stand out like the mountains of metal they are:
truck-based behemoths capable of towing more than four tons while
seating up to eight people. Despite their excesses, these giants remain
indispensable for their vast range of capabilities. While both of the
segment’s icons, the Chevrolet Tahoe and the Ford Expedition, see a significant evolution for 2015, each applies its own formula for taking an entire homestead on holiday.
The Tahoe follows the path of the latest Chevy Silverado 1500,
borrowing its updated boxed frame and 5.3-liter small-block V-8 with
aluminum block-and-head construction, direct fuel injection, variable
valve timing, and cylinder deactivation. Its 355 horsepower and 383
pound-feet of torque motivate a stylish, if conventional, rig that
stands apart from the donor pickup with more of its own sheetmetal and
rear coils instead of leaf springs. In a first for the ute, even its
front doors are different from the Silverado’s.
|
There’s still a rudimentary solid axle slung under the rear, but new
Magnetic Ride Control dampers (exclusive to range-topping LTZ models
like our 4x4 test truck) help manage nearly three tons of SUV with
commendable poise. A fresh interior design similar to the Silverado’s
welcomes occupants with soft materials, vibrant digital readouts, and
all-day comfort.
All that comes at a price, though, with our example starting at $64,530
before adding the $500 Max Trailering package (3.42:1 axle ratio,
trailer-brake controller, upgraded Z71 suspension, and two-speed
transfer case) and $400 20-inch chrome wheels. Entry-level Expeditions
start a couple grand less than a base Tahoe ($44,585 versus $46,745,
respectively), but the top-spec Platinum 4x4 seen here stickered at
$64,365, including $2180 for massive 22-inch polished aluminum wheels.
|
|
The Expedition's turbocharged 3.5-liter V-6 provides more peak torque at a lower engine speed than the Tahoe's 5.3-liter V-8.
|
Unlike the Tahoe, the F-150–based
Expedition has changed little since its last refresh in 2007. Yet even
it employs a modern independent rear suspension. And we would be remiss
if we failed to mention that it gains a few new tricks for 2015:
three-way adjustable dampers that come with the big rollers, as well as a
standard 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 making 365 horsepower at 5000 rpm and
420 pound-feet of torque at 2500 rpm. In addition to new lighting
elements and subtle exterior sculpting, there’s a revised instrument
panel and steering wheel, dual 4.2-inch readouts in the cluster, and a
reworked center stack housing an available eight-inch screen for MyFord
Touch control.
Knowing that owners often take these trucks on fall-color treks to
vacation cottages, we hit the test track and then set course for scenic
Ludington, Michigan, on the sandy coast of our state’s eponymous lake.
For good measure, we also contacted Four Winns Boats in Cadillac,
Michigan, which lent us a gleaming-new Signature H260 ski boat and
trailer ($115,976). Hauling this 26-foot-long, 7000-pound payload out of
the water for the season was an ideal—and realistic—challenge for these
titans. Both trucks were thoroughly engineered for the voyage and
didn’t disappoint, though only one returned the winner
While the latest Tahoe is far more advanced than the original that
helped spark the SUV explosion of the 1990s, it hasn’t evolved as
adeptly as the Expedition in key areas.
Looking like a windswept brick, the Tahoe’s new sheetmetal is creased
and handsome, with a high beltline that gives it an angry, chopped-top
mien. But this can make occupants feel as if they’re sitting in a giant,
waterless bathtub, and outward visibility suffers from the smaller
greenhouse. We could do with less chrome, too.
Both trucks have plenty of luxury touches, from heated and cooled seats
to excellent rearview cameras that make it a snap to hitch up a trailer
in one go. It takes more of a step to get into the Chevy than the Ford,
but the former’s cabin is the nicer of the two, as long as you’re in the
front. It has 73 cubic feet of front seating space versus 62 in the
Ford. It also has smarter controls with larger buttons and knobs, and
nicer materials. The seats are more supportive for wider frames, too,
though they’re firmer than the plushy Ford’s.
|
While a conventional middle-row bench seat is a no-cost option, our
truck had power-folding captain’s chairs. The setup limits seating to
just four occupants if you want to carry any significant bulk, though
the individual thrones are high on comfort and make easy work of getting
to the way back. But there are only 32 cubes of cargo space with the
rear-most row folded flat, versus 43 in the Ford. That’s largely a
result of the higher load floor necessary to clear the Chevy’s solid
rear axle. Third-row seating here should be reserved for children and
adults you don’t like.
The Tahoe manages its 5670 pounds surprisingly well. The ride is tame
over smoother surfaces; the factory setting on the nonadjustable
magnetorheological shocks is a good one. And there’s a planted,
confidence-inspiring feel in corners that also makes towing a big
trailer drama-free. But the Chevy’s old-school suspension doesn’t let it
float down the road like the Ford or stay as settled over broken
pavement.
|
|
While
its new interior is nicely finished, the Tahoe's cargo- and
people-carrying capacities are compromised by its rear suspension.
|
The Tahoe’s quick, hefty tiller (3.4 turns lock-to-lock versus 3.7)
gives it over-the-road authority, but the Expedition, which is 485
pounds heavier, was actually the speedier of the two through our slalom
test by nearly 3 mph. The Chevy also needed 180 feet to stop from 70
mph, an additional 10 over the Ford.
Nor could the lighter Tahoe match the Expedition in straight-line
acceleration, despite both trucks having similar six-speed automatic
transmissions and two-speed four-wheel-drive systems. Not that 6.7
seconds to 60 mph (plus 15.2 in the quarter-mile at 92 mph) is slow for a
small house, but the Expedition was consistently a tenth or two or
three ahead below 100 mph. True, the Chevy’s 17-mpg average for our
500-mile round trip was one better than the Ford’s, including 20 or so
miles of towing, during which the Chevy V-8 occasionally ran in
four-cylinder mode. This was despite the Expedition’s smaller, high-tech
engine and Ford’s promise of improved efficiency without compromising
power. But the small-block’s 4100-rpm torque peak never provided the
instant thrust of the Expedition’s boosted V-6, nor the pull we expected
from its burly exhaust note. With a carlike feel that some drivers
preferred to the truckish Ford, the latest Tahoe is a highly polished
and immensely capable SUV. But the Expedition is better in many
meaningful ways
Ignore the big wheels and fresh details, and the latest Expedition just
sort of blends in. It’s definitely big—nearly three inches taller and
riding on a wheelbase three inches longer than the Tahoe’s—but this is
mostly the same truck that Ford has churned out for years.
Yet, despite its girth and seemingly near-static sameness, the big Ford
is admirably light on its feet, winning almost every performance test.
There’s only 0.78 g of lateral grip on the skidpad, and its softer
suspension tune permits more head toss than in the Chevy. But the
Expedition’s center of gravity is actually 0.5 inch lower than the
Tahoe’s. Combined with a smidge less than 50 percent of its weight over
the front wheels, directional changes are more secure. There’s a
noticeable difference between settings for the new continuous control
suspension’s shocks (comfort, normal, sport), but the controls are
buried in the gauge-cluster menus, so we usually left it in the default
setting, which is all-around pleasant.
|
Not only does the Expedition’s independent rear suspension make for a
steadier ride over rough terrain, its superior packaging permits a lower
cargo floor that’s much easier to load with gear. When it comes to
seating, the eight-passenger Expedition shines with a three-abreast
middle bench and a third row that can seat real full-size adults. Plus,
both rows fold flat. More glass area than in the Tahoe, including the
Platinum’s standard power sunroof, ensures that all occupants get a
scenic view.
Whether hitched to the boat or on its own, the Expedition, which can tow
up to 9200 pounds versus the Tahoe’s 8400, always felt stable and
powerful. The EcoBoost V-6 is a torque mill, and it works smartly with
the six-speed automatic to keep the truck pulling when the Chevy’s V-8
is straining for revs. A 6.4-second run to 60 mph and 15 flat in the
quarter are more than adequate. The Expedition’s 16-mpg average (one
less than its EPA combined rating) is a reminder of how much weight
you’re carrying, and the quiet thrum of the V-6 can sound odd coming
from such a large rig. Nevertheless, this is an excellent powerplant for
a large truck.
|
The Ford’s ambience behind the wheel is a little stale, from the blocky
design to the tacky faux-wood trim and acres of hard plastic. The
plethora of menus and data from the various displays can be daunting,
and the tiny buttons are sized for elfin hands. The Platinum’s two-tone
leather spices things up a bit, and the ride is as similarly hushed as
the Chevy’s. But while both trucks were more than capable of handling
our lakeside adventure, the Ford imposed fewer compromises.
It may not be as new or efficient as the Tahoe, but the Expedition is a
bit cheaper, and more powerful, flexible, and capacious. For a vehicle
that will likely haul a bit of everything over its lifetime, such
versatility makes it hard to beat.| Vehicle | 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe LTZ | 2015 Ford Expedition Platinum | ||
| Base Price | $64,530 | $62,185 | ||
| Price as Tested | $65,430 | $64,365 | ||
| Dimensions | ||||
| Length | 204.0 inches | 206.0 inches | ||
| Width | 80.5 inches | 78.8 inches | ||
| Height | 74.4 inches | 77.2 inches | ||
| Wheelbase | 116.0 inches | 119.0 inches | ||
| Front Track | 68.7 inches | 67.0 inches | ||
| Rear Track | 68.7 inches | 67.2 inches | ||
| Interior Volume |
F: 73 cubic feet M: 57 cubic feet R: 32 cubic feet |
F: 62 cubic feet M: 57 cubic feet R: 43 cubic feet |
||
| Cargo Behind |
F: 95 cubic feet M: 52 cubic feet R: 15 cubic feet |
F: 108 cubic feet M: 55 cubic feet R: 19 cubic feet |
||
| Towing | ||||
| Max | 8400 pounds | 9200 pounds | ||
| As Tested | 8400 pounds | 9200 pounds | ||
|
|
||||
| Powertrain | ||||
| Engine |
pushrod 16-valve V-8 325 cu in (5327 cc) |
twin-turbocharged DOHC 24-valve V-6 213 cu in (3496 cc) |
||
| Power HP @ RPM | 355 @ 5600 | 365 @ 5000 | ||
| Torque LB-FT @ RPM | 383 @ 4100 | 420 @ 2500 | ||
| Redline / Fuel Cutoff | –/5825 rpm | 6200/6200 rpm | ||
| LB Per HP | 16.0 | 16.9 | ||
| Driveline | ||||
| Transmission | 6-speed automatic | 6-speed automatic | ||
| Driven Wheels | all | all | ||
|
Gear Ratio:1/ MPH Per 1000 RPM/ Max MPH |
 4.03/6.7/39 2.36/11.5/67 1.53/17.9/104 1.15/23.8/113 0.85/32.3/114 0.67/40.9/114
|
4.17/6.6/41 2.34/12.1/70 1.52/18.8/109 1.14/25.0/113 0.86/32.8/113 0.69/40.7/113
|
||
| Axle Ratio:1 | 3.42 | 3.31 | ||
|
|
||||
| Chassis | ||||
| Suspension |
F: control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: rigid axle, coil springs, anti-roll bar |
F: control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar |
||
| Brakes |
F: 13.0-inch vented disc R: 13.6-inch vented disc |
F: 13.8-inch vented disc R: 13.5-inch vented disc |
||
| Stability Control | partially defeatable, traction off | fully defeatable, traction off | ||
| Tires |
Continental CrossContact LX20 EcoPlus P275/55R-20 111S M+S |
Pirelli Scorpion Verde All-Season 285/45R-22 114H M+S |
||
|
|
||||
|
C/D Test Results |
||||
| Acceleration | ||||
| 0–30 MPH | 2.3 sec | 2.1 sec | ||
| 0–60 MPH | 6.7 sec | 6.4 sec | ||
| 0–100 MPH | 18.1 sec | 18.2 sec | ||
| 0–110 MPH | 23.1 sec | 24.3 sec | ||
| ¼-Mile @ MPH | 15.2 sec @ 92 | 15.0 sec @ 92 | ||
| Rolling Start, 5–60 MPH | 7.4 sec | 7.2 sec | ||
| Top Gear, 30–50 MPH | 3.9 sec | 3.9 sec | ||
| Top Gear, 50–70 MPH | 4.8 sec | 5.1 sec | ||
| Top Speed | 114 mph (gov ltd) | 113 mph (gov ltd) | ||
| Chassis | ||||
| Braking 70–0 MPH | 180 feet | 170 feet | ||
|
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia Skidpad |
0.79 g | 0.78 g | ||
| 610-ft Slalom | 36.7 mph* | 39.2 mph | ||
| Weight | ||||
| Curb | 5670 pounds | 6155 pounds | ||
| %Front/%Rear | 51.6/48.4 | 49.9/50.1 | ||
| CG Height | 29.0 inches | 28.5 inches | ||
| Fuel | ||||
| Tank | 26.0 gallons | 28.0 gallons | ||
| Rating | 87 octane | 87 octane | ||
| EPA City/Hwy | 16/22 mpg | 15/20 mpg | ||
| C/D 500-Mile Trip | 17 mpg | 16 mpg | ||
| Practical Stowage | ||||
|
Beer Cases, Behind F/M/R |
70/30/7 | 70/37/8 | ||
| Length of Pipe | 135.3 inches | 142.3 inches | ||
|
Largest Flat Panel, Length x Width |
82.3 x 49.3 inches | 86.5 x 49.5 inches | ||
| Sound Level | ||||
| Idle | 39 dBA | 38 dBA | ||
| Full Throttle | 71 dBA | 71 dBA | ||
| 70-MPH Cruise | 66 dBA | 68 dBA | ||
|
*stability-control inhibited. |
||||
|
tested in Chelsea, Michigan, by K.C. Colwell and Don Sherman |
||||
|
|
||||
| Final Results | ||||
| Vehicle |
Rank
Max Pts. Available
|
1
2015 Ford Expedition Platinum
|
2
2015 Chevrolet Tahoe LTZ
|
|
| Driver Comfort | 10 | 8 | 8 | |
| Ergonomics | 10 | 8 | 9 | |
| Second-Row Comfort | 5 | 5 | 4 | |
| Second-Row Space* | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| Third-Row Comfort | 5 | 4 | 2 | |
| Third-Row Space* | 5 | 5 | 1 | |
| Cargo Space* | 5 | 5 | 3 | |
| Towing Capacity* | 5 | 5 | 3 | |
| Features/Amenities* | 10 | 9 | 10 | |
| Fit and Finish | 10 | 7 | 8 | |
| Interior Styling | 10 | 7 | 8 | |
| Exterior Styling | 10 | 8 | 8 | |
| Rebates/Extras* | 5 | 0 | 0 | |
| As-tested Price* | 20 | 20 | 20 | |
| Subtotal | 115 | 96 | 89 | |
|
|
||||
| Powertrain | ||||
| 1/4-mile Acceleration* | 20 | 20 | 19 | |
| Flexibility* | 5 | 3 | 3 | |
| Fuel Economy* | 10 | 9 | 10 | |
| Engine NVH | 10 | 9 | 9 | |
| Transmission | 10 | 8 | 7 | |
| Subtotal | 55 | 49 | 48 | |
|
|
||||
| Chassis | ||||
| Performance* | 20 | 20 | 18 | |
| Steering Feel | 10 | 5 | 5 | |
| Brake Feel | 10 | 7 | 7 | |
| Handling | 10 | 7 | 6 | |
| Ride | 10 | 9 | 8 | |
| Subtotal | 60 | 48 | 44 | |
|
|
||||
| Experience | ||||
| Fun to Drive | 25 | 10 | 11 | |
|
|
||||
| Grand Total | 255 | 203 | 192 | |
|
|
||||
 * These objective scores are calculated from the vehicle's dimensions, capacities, rebates and extras, and/or test results.
| ||||
Source : http://www.caranddriver.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment