Anybody read the Consumer Reports SUV Shootout? They pitted the Tahoe, X and Sequoia ina tow match for one test. The X came in last even though it develops MORE torque.

0-60 mph towing 6000 lbs results:

Hoe - 8.7 secs 285 Hp 325 ft-lbs
Seq - 9.7 240 Hp 315 ft-lbs
X - 10.5 260 Hp 360 ft-lbs

I heard a rumor that Chevy sent a test vehicle with a 4.10 rear end knowing the Ford only had a 3.73. If true wouldn't that make a BIG difference in 0-60 tow?

Also If i recall the Seq has a low rear end gear too.

Any comments?

Cody

 

Yes lower gearing in the rear will make it accelerate faster, but it will also cause youto have a lower fuel mileage when driving around town. So it's trade off. Have a little better acceleration or a little better gas mileage.
Don

 

bump

 

Sounds like dirty pool if the "rumor" is true. In any comparison testing, the vehicles should be as similar as possible. Rear gears will have a profound impact in such a test.

 

Repeat after me:

I will never believe Consumer Reports
I will never believe Consumer Reports
I will never believe Consumer Reports
I will never believe Consumer Reports


Continue until you feel better.

My experience rarely, if ever, agrees with their 'scientific measurements!'

 

If they were tested with th STANDARD offered ration in all vehicles then it would be fair.
If It was offered with a lower ratio and all three were given their lowest available gear ratios available from the factory and ford didnt offer something that low, then again.. its fair
If the Chevy was offered with Low gears and nothing else was then Unfair?

BUT everyone always HEARS rumors and I would be curious as to WHERE this person heard a Rumor about the rearend ratio being tested by Consumer Reports?
Does he know an actual tester for the Mag? WAS he a tester? Did he personally, or someone he knows inspect the vehicles?
Im not much on rumors, and Have found Consumer Reports to be a fairly accurate Mag, but not always 100%

Ron
99 XLT 4.6 (0-60 in 4 1/2 minutes)

 

I do Believe SOME mistake had to be made because 0-60 in 8.7 seconds pulling 6,000 pounds has GOT to be a mistake, I dont think a DIESEL will pull that number off?

The 0-60 times fit perfectly with their own weight.

 

The 0-60 times WERE with no weight. They were not pulling the weight regarding those times but they did do a 1/4 mile tow "race" and the X was last. The Tahoe won and the Sequoia second.

But if the torque specs on the three are correct how could this be, other than gearing. The Hoe develops 325 ft-lbs peak torque at 4000 rpm. The Sequoia 315 ft-lbs at 3800 rpm and the X has the most at 360 ft-lbs @ 2500 rpms.

Available ratios are 3.73 and 4.10 for the Hoe. 3.92 and 4.11 for the Sequoia and the X only has 3.73 ratio available.

If the Tahoe develops 325 ft-lbs with a 3.73 ratio and the X 360 ft-lbs with a 3.73 ratio, how could the Hoe win the tow race? I realize the X weighs about 600 lbs more but would that make a big difference in towing? If on the other hand the Hoe had a 4.10 ratio and the X it's only available 3.73 ratio then no wonder the Tahoe won the towing race.

Bronco nut

I'm with you. CR is not impressive. Several years ago I started researching trucks. It was painfully obvious they were totally biased to anything IMPORTED. As I researched I found they were this way about cars and vans too.

Cody

 

Sorry for the double post.

 

Again, to be objective they should have used the 3.73 in the Tahoe, the 3.92 in the Sequoia and the 3.73 in the Expedition........OR had some 4.10 gears installed in the X for around $400. Otherwise one is comparing apples to lemons.

Does anybody have FACTUAL data showing what gears were used? Without researching the matter, I find it hard to believe that the highest gear ratio in the Toyota is 3.92:1 unless they are offsetting this relatively low ratio with taller wheels/tires or some other variable.

 

IF the Chevy and the Toyota had the Optional gears, and The Ford Didnt, then it Is FAIR.. Ford SHOULD offer an optional ratio in something this large, just out of Common sense.
Thats Like saying, well, they should have done something to squeeze another 35 pounds of torque out of the chevy to make it fair.
It's a selling point, and may sway a buyer TOWARDS the gm or toyota , the fact they can be geared to tow better.

As for the times, 0-60 times favor peak horsepower over torque, its just simple mash it and go. 500 ft pounds of torque and 200 horsepower is going to have a slower 0-60 time than 300 horsepower and 400 foot pounds of torque (above numbers exagerrated). Towing 6,000 pounds will more than likely yield similar results. Now, in order to tow uphill at slow speeds, or on mountains with switchbacks, etc... the expy should have an advantage, as none of the trucks would be very high in the rpm range to take advantage of peak horsepower.

Ron
99 4.6 (torque? what torque?)

 

I've searched the net high and low and the only gear eference I can find for the Toyota Sequoia is 3.92 and 4.11.

IF the Chevy and the Toyota had the Optional gears, and The Ford Didnt, then it Is FAIR.. Ford SHOULD offer an optional ratio in something this large, just out of Common sense.

True that. The only point is, because of the gearing, the engine's full potential isn't realized. But then that's not CR's fault. It really irritates me that Ford doesn't offer more gears. To be touted as the highest "tower" in it's class the X should have several available gearings.

I will say this. CR did not divulge what the gears were in the test. They are either covering someones *** or they don't know. In which the latter case is (IMO) incompetence. Any idiot knows gearing is absolutely essential when towing. A Singer sewing machine can pull a freight train if it's geared right.

The differences between the specs (Hp, curb weight, etc) of the Tahoe and the X are not so great that one would see 2 full seconds in 0-60 times.

As a "consumer" I need to know the final drive ratios of these vehicles to be able to accurately determine which one would perform better for me. IF the Tahoe had a 4.11 and the X had a 3.73 in the test then the fact remains that this would be a HUGE determining factor in tow tests AND 0-60 times. Who gives a flip about what is "fair". I'm more concerned with accurate and thorough reporting, which (IMO) CR did NOT do because they ommitted this highly critical data. At least I never saw it in the report. If it's there please correct me.

But fair? Yes, it's "fair". It's just not accurately reflecting the full potenial of the 5.4 L Triton. But then that's no ones fault but the maker (read FORD).

Thanks for the input guys. This has turned to be an interesting discussion.

Cody

 

I agree expycody2,
If the towing would have been uphill, around switchbacks, etc.. Then there the ford should have faired a bit better, but it would still be hard to over come the advantage of 25 hp and 4:10 gears.
Ford Could really trun this thing into a beast with just some different gears. In Fact Instead of putting an exhaust, and filter on my 99 I have been thinking of swapping some gears...

Hmmmmmmm!

 

Like I said, if you want 4.10 gears or lower, spend the $400. What are the price differences between the three tested vehicles. I'd bet the Expy is the lowest priced vehicle.

 

It's not about 0-60, or the 1/4 mile drags, or any of that.

Who really cares about that? The way I tow, what I'd want in a tow vehicle comparison is how well they can maintain speed up hills, how little the transmission hunts, gas mileage with the towing load on the highway, and especially, how easy was the towing on the driver? Was the driver constantly aware of the trailer, or was it "like it wasn't there?"

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?