First of all, im a ford guy, always have been always will be. I married a chevy nut, so ive gotten to see whats on the other side in the last couple years.

I dont know about with the suvs but with my 1/2 tons the chevy will toast the ford in 0-60 both equiped with 3.73s. Both were unmodified 2000s model year the chevy with a 5.3 and 4x4 and the ford with 5.4 and 4x4.
The ford favors a little better in towing long hills, but the chevy pulls slightly better in most cases.
I havnt been able to compare an expy with a tahoe very closely, but dont find it hard to believe the tahoe would outrun the expy in a 0-60 or a 1/4 mile trailer race. Because in the 0-60 and 1/4 mile run they are keeping the rpms up where the chevy needs to be, and not where the ford is designed to run.
If they did a hill maintaining speed run with trailer where they both started a long hill at a certain speed and measured speed lost or time, then there might be a slightly different outcome.
A stock expy is like driving a grain truck compared to the tahoe. Lots of torque, but the fun factor is lacking. Also the stock transmission setup for the expy is a little soft and wouldnt help the time much.
These realizations were tough for me to accept as a ford guy, but now i know which rig to get into depending on what im going to do.

Tony Warren
Nebraska

 

Consumer Reports has no idea on how to test vehicles. Check their history. They need to stick to toasters.

Pete

 

I agree expycody2,
If the towing would have been uphill, around switchbacks, etc.. Then there the ford should have faired a bit better...

I've a friend that has both Tahoe with 5.3 and Expy with 5.4. He said the Tahoe will outrun the X in race but in towing the X has a much easier time with heavy loads than the Hoe. He says the X hardly notices the load. But his Tahoe is huffing and puffing on hills, constantly downshifting etc. Both have 3.73 rearends.

0-60 or 1/4 mi is of little practical value when we're talking about tow vehicles anyway. Did the article include any numbers or opinions of real value?

True that! Real value? whaddaya mean? The article included 0-60 mph times towing 6200 lbs. RESULTS:

Tahoe - 22.3 sec
X - 26.4 sec
Seq - 23.8 sec

Of course that says nothing for hills at hwy speed. But I would expect the X to be able to get a load up to speed more quickly than either the Tahoe or the Seq simply due to torque.

Here's an example of what torque does for me. For a quick comparison I took my Powerstroke F350 4x4 crew cab long bed and pulled a 6500 lbs load (4500 lb truck on a 1500 lb trailer with 500 lbs of tools) from 0-60 in about 20 seconds flat (19.97) on level road. The horsepower rating of that truck is only 235 Hp. But the torque of the 7.3 L Powerstroke is rated at a whopping 500 lb-ft! Using that little test it would appear that Hp has less to do with towing a load 0-60 than torque. No doubt the Tahoe would smoke my f350 in a 0-60 race with no load. However loaded the cards change significantly. Just an FYI the gears in my f350 are 3.55. Imagine what it would do with 3.73 or 4.11.

Speed is a world class wide receiver. Torque is a 350 lbs offensive tackle. In a foot race the receiver wins hands down. Pushing a sled 50 yards with a 300 lbs coach standing on it is no match. Is this a bad analogy?

Consumer Reports has no idea on how to test vehicles. Check their history. They need to stick to toasters.

Well at least concerning trucks it seems as if they are more concerned with the functionality of picking up kids from school and running to the 7-11 for a gallon of milk. You'd think by now CR could develop some thorough testing standards for trucks. I'm still amazed they included no torque figures or the final drive ratios for these trucks.

 

What about the advatge of Hp the X has over the Sequoia? The X is rated 20 Hp more but still lost the race.

You are right though that Ford could really enhance the performance of this new X with an expanded line of gears.

I just got off the phone with Randy's ring and pinion. He ran the numbers and said I could take it up to 4.11 on the 4x4 X for $585 parts. My "chanic" just told me he could install 'em for $4-500. But it'd probably void my warranty.

L8R

Cody

 

Installation of gears cannot "void" your warranty. That would be like saying the installation of taller or shorter wheels/tires will void the warranty (because that has the same effect). Now a dealership will balk at repairing the new gears in the event they go bad or if they directly cause another problem.


$1,000 to $1,100 sounds like a pretty good deal for both axles. I've often thought about taking mine down to 4.10's but just can't force myself to pay that kind of dough when I don't tow very frequently.

 

I agree with peterbilt. Remember a few years back when the suzuki samurai was labeled a deathtrap. They strapped training wheels to the roof, then tried to take 90 degree turns at like 50-60 mph with it..................How about the "unintended acceleration" of the Audi 5000 ? I wonder how much $$$ Audi lost because of those claims. The car was independently examined, and disassembeld, and NOTHING was found to make the car behave that way. The pedals were spaced close together, like a sports car, and all those yuppies coulnd't admit they hit the wrong pedal..............

 

I hate to bring this up, but you're all forgetting about one thing: weight. The Tahoe 4x4 has a curb weight of 5050 lbs, but the Expedition weighs in at 5723 lbs. That makes the Expy about 13% heavier than the Tahoe. Add in the extra horsepower and a possible difference in axle ratios, and there you are. The numbers could be pretty accurate. Don't get me wrong- as a car salesman, I am NO FAN of Consumer Reports. I will say this for them: no one "supplies" them with vehicles. They send out their employees who purchase all their test vehicles in their own name, so no one knows that the vehicles are for CR testing. That way, specially prepped vehicles do not find their way to CR- they get the same vehicle that you and I do.

 

1956 MarkII

Execellent point. Chevy couldn't rig the Tahoe with the optional 4.11 gears.

So maybe the idiots at CR paid NO attention to the gearing of any of the vehicles. Because it's obvious from the report gear was meaningless to them since they made absolutely no mention of it.

Regarding 0-60 times with no load I think you are dead on the money. The Hp difference and the weight difference could be accounted for between the Hoe and the X. The weight to Hp ratio for the two vehicles is TAHOE - 17 lbs/Hp.....X 22.7lbs/Hp. But doesn't torque mean something? When It comes to sheer towing power the X should've faired better. This is where I think CR is radically lacking in their assement of trucks period.

Also regard your Hp assumption what about the Seqouia. It weighed in at 5,280 according to CR. The X was 5,900. But the X (according to CR) develops 260 Hp the Seqouia only 240. The weight to Hp ratio of these vehicles is almost identical. Both are right at 22 lbs per Hp. Yet the Toyota still won the race in 0-60 by a full second! The only thing that makes sense to me on that one is gearing.

If you study the CR review you'll notice something peculiar. Very very few of their stats and specs (weight, lengths, height, turning circle, etc) exaclty match those from the manufacturer. This is good. This is indicative of independent testing. The exception being horesepower and torque ratings. Horsepower and torue specs are INDENTICAL to the manufacturers published specs on any CR report I've read.

I find that strange considering the have a WHOLE STAFF of "automotive engineers" that work there. Go to their website and their credits are listed. If they are so independent and thourough then why don't they do dyno testing to determine Hp and torque "independently"

Like peterbilt said...they need to stick to reviewing toasters. It appears to me that thorough review of trucks is out of their realm of expertise.

Cody

 

My biggest beef with CR is this: most of the vehicles that they buy to test, and WHY they buy them. Have you noticed there's a lot more sports cars and expensive luxury cars in the reports? They'll tell you that the BMW 5-series is an excellent sedan. DUH!! For 50 grand it SHOULD be a great car, and I don't need CR to tell me that. Or that someone that's always dreamed of owning a Corvette is suddenly going to buy a Porsche because CR says it's a better sports car. What a waste of newsprint! But here's what REALLY goes on: these so-called "engineers" and all the editors test these vehicles by DRIVING THEM BACK AND FORTH TO WORK AS COMMUTER VEHICLES. Now, if you were given the choice of a vehicle to drive, what would it be: a Kia Rio, or a Lexus LS400? This is why they test more and more expensive stuff, and fewer everyday cars; none of their people want to drive the pedestrian stuff. They lose a LOT of credibility with me when they start doing stuff like this. They've gone from an objective source of opinion to an exclusive country club for their employees. Sad............