I live in the rust belt area..Still Domestics from the 80s on up still running. Lucky to find a mythical quality toyota of any kind from the early 2000s. Nothing but a myth of the "quality" being so great.
John Smith. From what I've heard, everything rusts to bits up there, foreign or domestic. The domestics you probably see is likely because they're easier to repair being domestic, part availability etc.. So the myth is that domestics are somehow magically more rust proof than imports.. It's a well known fact that Toyotas are more reliable than anything domestic
You see a lot of the domestics rusted and still going It's a known fact toyotas last ten years at most. And your theory of rustproofing and parts is way off at best. The camry has been here over 25 years.. Toyoto has been here since the late 1960s So your theory is not relevant "The domestics you probably see is likely because they're easier to repair being domestic, part availability etc.." So do bring some more theories up.
John Smith where I live (Indiana) i see far more old Toyota cars than ford and chevys on the road. Trucks is a different matter, but I don’t think they Toyota trucks sold as well anyways so it’s not really a fair comparison. The Camry, Corolla, and Avalon are everywhere here, seen MUCH more often than Taurus, Escort, Malibu, or old impala. Though oddly I also see a shit ton of Ford fusions, they’re almost guaranteed the most popular car where I live. The F150 and Silverado are popular too, but far more Tahoes/GM suvs than expeditions /excursions.
I’ve driven that Tahoe and the luxury version of the Armada (Infiniti QX80). Both rode great and gas mileage was similar but the Infiniti QX80 performed better for me. The brakes are phenomenal, even in panic braking. Interior was very quiet compared to the Tahoe. Plus you can put regular gas in that Infiniti. The gas cap says Premium recommended not required and the horsepower to me is still great. If you can’t afford the cheapest Infiniti QX80, the Armada with the platinum trim would be a great alternative.
Allah O'ahu and there is already problems with it misfiring due to condensation buildup in the intercooler and the fix it to drill a drip hole under the intercooler which is such a joke lol
Charles Macgilchrist because GM paid them to say it got better mileage. In real life the Ecoboost gets better fuel mileage than the gutless unreliable piece of trash 6.2.
Andrew P "because GM paid them to say it got better mileage." Then why did Motorweek ranked the Tahoe 3rd? Obviously if GM paid Motorweek, they'll say more biased stuff about the Tahoe than "better mileage". Also do you have any claims that GM paid MW? just wondering. "In real life the Ecoboost gets better fuel mileage than the gutless unreliable piece of trash 6.2." First, do you have any sources that says the Ecoboost gets better mileage than the "gutless unreliable piece of trash 6.2"? Second, I haven't heard anyone called the 6.2l V8 gutless and unreliable unless you really hated GM/Chevy. Perhaps you got a bad lemon on your Silverado? Perhaps you think pushrod engines are old and outdated while DOHC engines are new and sophisticated. IDK, I'm just guessing.
Just got the 2017 Armada, drives like a dream, super quiet cab, insane acceleration for a big SUV, and going over 100mph still feels so smooth, like going 60, and quiet cab even at 100mph. The 3rd row has plenty of room, (2 inches more legroom than tahoe I believe with slightly less shoulder/hip than tahoe due to square shape. I can still sit back there fine and I am 6'4...When you lay all the seats down it is like 7.5 ft of space for a mattress to camp in full independent suspension...My only issue is mileage, and that's a given with any big boy SUVs. I am averaging 15.9 mpg and then the back bumper makes it look like it's got a large badonkadonk. I want to find an aftermarket rear bumper since It's the only real issue I have with it. Much cheaper than the Tahoe, of the same year and it is honestly better in every way except, the exterior of the newer Tahoe is gorgeous.
Faisal Almadhi off road and Nissan Armada don’t mix together. The sequoia TRD Pro and Expedition FX4 are specifically made for that, the armada is a mommy car at this point.
ford expedition last generation armada is a mommy car, but not this generation . This one is a rebadged Nissan patrol, which has better off road capability than land cruiser and almost the same reliability
I recently rented a Yukon XL, which is basically a Suburban, which is basically a long Tahoe. LOVED driving that truck. It drove very smoothly, got amazing fuel economy with a 5.3 L (an indicated 22mpg avg), and was very comfortable. The thing I noticed about it though, is that it was very inefficient as far as the Interior space. We also had an older Dodge Caravan rental car, and in the Yukon we could fit 3 people and 3 mountain bikes with gear, and in the minivan, we could fit four people, and 4 bikes with gear. And that was a standard wheelbase Caravan, not the long wheelbase. The relatively low ceiling height of the Yukon had us laying the bikes down, while the much higher ceiling of the Caravan allowed us to stand the bikes up. If one does not need to tow, and all-wheel drive is not a big concern, as uncool as they look the minivan is still the most practical choice as far as interior space and people moving capability.
This was a total bias review to help push the EcoBoost motor and this is coming from a Ford guy. I think overall they're really trying to push these twin turbo 6 cylinder and 4 cylinder engines in these big SUVs I'm sorry as long as I'm buying a full-size SUV I want a V8 under my hood not no V6 with two turbos that's probably not going to get to 100,000 miles before you start having problems I rather have a all motor V8
I get why you say this, but the data in real f150s suggest they've been quite reliable. The biggest issue I've seen with the timing chain was fixed in the gen 2 Ecoboost.
You were right, all the expeditions up to 2020 have recalls for the cam phasers. Pretty much if you wait to get it fixed, which ford makes you wait until they have the part.. sometimes a year later, you could wreck the engine.
The RST is Sports package for the Tahoe. The Denali is a trim. The full RST package gives the Premier a sporty suspension with Magnaride, 6.2 with high performance air filter, blacked out chrome...etc. Basically if you want a little more fun with your SUV. Sequoia update probably coming with the Tundra in next couple years.
Why does every vehicle need to be redesigned and updated? Why can't there be just one vehicle in each category that has a little older design and also a less expensive price tag for the normal people to get without a remortgage on their house?
Well I do like the new Expedition, My ultimate concern is the reliability of that twin turbo V6, as well as overall cost of maintenance on a more complex engine. How much extra does it cost to maintain a pair of turbochargers? Are spark plug changes needed more often, and if so, how much is each service interval? It's a marvel of an engine, but I'm really concerned about overall cost of operation on it...
Keep the oil changed and at the right level and the turbos should be fine. According to Ford spark plug changes are at 100K miles. People have hit 200K on the ecoboost V6 with proper care.
The new 3.5 Liter Ecoboost V6 has both port and direct fuel injection, so there won't be as much carbon buildup as the last-generation 3.5 Liter Ecoboost V6.
I don't understand why they can't use a V-8 in The Expedition. They switched to a twin turbo V-6 for better mpg, and they still don't beat the Tahoe. I'm sure all of the extra plumbing makes weight issues a push. Put a V-8 in it, and work on fuel management systems. I can't imagine using one of these as a tow vehicle that's pulling pretty close to capacity. It just seems like a turbo (or two), is just the wrong motor for this application. I also am not a big fan of most of the automakers putting turbos in almost every vehicle they make. It just seems like they're going to be sticking a bunch of people without great means in a bind, when they purchase a "good" used vehicle for $7,500-$10,000, with 125k miles on it, and then have a turbo fail, and leave them a vehicle that they paid $7,500 for 6 months ago, parked in their driveway, because it needs $6000 in engine repairs that they can't afford. It just seems like the affordable, reliable used car, is becoming something of the past, leaving a whole large group of people without many options of having their own transportation. For full disclosure, I own a Cadillac CT6 with the 3.0 twin turbo, and I love it. It was the only option available. I would have gladly traded it for a normally aspirated V-8, if they offered that. I also have absolutely zero plans of keeping this vehicle beyond 75k miles at most. So yeah, I'm kind of a hypocrite, but options left me with no other option.
Armada is a winner for reliability? Lol. Guess my sister whose 2016 was in the shop constantly and finally got lemon lawed just got unlucky... but that isnt what I've read online either. Seems to be pretty common
Many HD fleets are finding out the hard way that the V6 turbo doesn't deliver the real world mileage as stated. Also Pace Bus co. tried several of the engines in their E450 based buses, and found the fuel usage and cost was ON PARE with their older V10s. Down time and maintenance costs were significantly higher with the V6 vs the old ten. The diesel delivered more mpgs than both, but also had higher maintenance costs than the gas V10. As a result, Pace found that in the long run, replacing a worn out V10 with a new long block was more economical then running and maintaining the V6 T or the diesel.
Never been in the Nissan, but I have been in the other 3, and third row wise, the Sequoia and Expedition has the best legroom. You can fit grown adults back there and have it still be comfortable for long road trips. The Tahoe, I’d say the third row should only be reserved for kids. Never understood why they sell so many since there are clearly better options. Nissan I would say is a good alternative if you’ve always wanted a luxury car, since it’s straight up a rebadged Infiniti QX80. One can argue that the Escalade is a rebadged Tahoe, but the Armada takes it to a whole new level. The interior is EXACTLY the same as the Infiniti.
Just got the 2017 Armada, drives like a dream, super quiet cab, insane acceleration for a big SUV, and going over 100mph still feels so smooth, like going 60, and quiet cab even at 100mph. The 3rd row has plenty of room, (2 inches more legroom than tahoe I believe with slightly less shoulder/hip than tahoe due to square shape. I can still sit back there fine and I am 6'4...When you lay all the seats down it is like 7.5 ft of space for a mattress to camp in full independent suspension...My only issue is mileage, and that's a given with any big boy SUVs. I am averaging 15.9 mpg and then the back bumper makes it look like it's got a large badonkadonk. I want to find an aftermarket rear bumper since It's the only real issue I have with it. Much cheaper than the Tahoe, of the same year and it is honestly better in every way except, the exterior of the newer Tahoe is gorgeous.
Why is no-one asking the obvious question on Pickups and Big SUVs , the PRICES and the escalation ???? 100,000 K for a 'Family Soccer Mom Wagon" or $60 K for a decent twin Cab Pickup ? Pricing has gone Mad, these are elitist prices !
Inflation, cost of labor, content, and quality of materials have all driven up the price. The foreigners can build vehicles cheaper because they don't use unions
So the Tahoe got the best MPG and best towing and it's the best looking, but it loses because the center console is too big?!?! The Armada is ugly inside and out
@@Shane23Armada @@Shane23Armada Horrifically unreliable. Its Infiniti twin I know for a fact is a nightmare. Regardless, Nissan is just shady. My manual gen two xterra, the transmission was taken from the z and put into a truck. They did this because the fj cruiser released with a six speed transmission and the Xterra first gen only had a five speed. The frontier and titan didn't fit in the second gen body, and they didn't have time to make a clutch assembly system from scratch for the vehicle, so they went with the z instead. Long story short, it's known on forums as the 8 thousand miles clutch. They never fixed the issue till the thing was discontinued because they couldn't afford to have the repairs paid for. If they fixed the issue part way through it's production that would be admitting fault, and they'd have to pay. So they kept making a pos truck for years full well knowing it wasnt made to last. That's only one of many issues. Another is on my nissans, my xterra included, their welding robots would leave metal shards on the body. Nissan didn't bother cleaning the cars properly before paint, and what you got is metal shards stuck in your paint that you can't see....muntil they start to rust. Then your car's back end (always the rear for some reason) looks like it has thousands of brown pimples everywhere. None of this, plus many, many other problems, were EVER covered. I hate them. They're about to swirl out of business and I say good riddance!
I have a 2013 Nissan Maxima (bought it in 2015) and it is still running there are no problems it is heavy built and even though it has a V6 it sounds super good compared to my 2017 Mercedes Benz C300 (also a V6). So it really does not make sense TO ME for people to say that Nissans are rot reliable.
Vehicle critics drive me crazy. All they focus on is how new the design is, how many "features" it has, and really nothing else. As a consumer, I'm interested primarily in function and reliability, not all the extra "features" and "tech" auto makers are adding to tack on an additional 10-15k for larger profit margins.
Really a v6 that is half the size of the v8s in displacement and it only gets 2 mpg better than the biggest and most powerful of the bunch, and then that v6 gets practically the worst mpg when under load, and it is easily the least reliable, yep that sounds like a winner.
lat woods I worked on a ford sponsored race team in an all Ford ecoboost race series. Not a single motor in any car made it through one season without blowing. As for basic engineering, more moving parts is more to go wrong. Turbos typically don't last much over 100,000 miles, turbo engines are under more stress than na engines. As far as reliability reporting, all Ecoboost motors have an atrocious record prior to I believe 2016 when Ford added the secondary injectors to clean the valves. Before then all Ecoboost have an inherant design flaw, yes by those genius engineers you regard so highly, that literally dooms every single Ecoboost engine to a shortened life. Fords solution has been to replace the cylinder head or perform the almond shell blasting to the tops of the intake valves on regular service intervals. Finally, I actually like the ecoboost engines for performance applications. They make great power, but fuel economy is not great and towing with a small turboed gasoline engine is certainly not ideal. Ps: my very own na v8 in my truck has 406,000 miles, no rebuild, just basic maintenance. My dad is the original owner and it was used for construction, towing, and light off-roading, and is still going strong. I keep my vehicles and need them to last. The ecoboost just has not proven to be something that will last.
Shane P interest input on the racing. I wonder why the ecoboost 3.5 does well at LeMans, Sebring, Laguna, etc. not tryna argue here. But those cars perform well with minimal breakdowns. But your claim on your racing team was that they all breakdown.
sweetcheels Yes, the race class had to use a factory stock 2.0 ecoboost. Engine had to be certified sealed and unaltered. Ford provided a factory tuned ecu. Not a single motor from any team made it one season. Keep in mind, obviously these motors were not being taken apart after every race. They had to be sealed. Most if not all the race teams you are talking about are high dollar and rebuilding and inspecting the motor after every race.
Nissan Armada wins this since Ford has aluminum body and has only V6. Armada interior is exactly like Infinity qx80 luxury, nothing compare to Expedition.
Sequoia will easily be the most reliable. The Chevrolet should be reliable too, but I’ve heard of a couple of people complaining about transmission troubles. Ford’s wild card is the TT V6 (although I know of ones that have hit over 100k in a few years and have had no issues whatsoever). The Armada has been a bit temperamental since it’s inception.
Are these guys insane!? The Sequoia is by far more reliable and styling and design is timeless. Everyone knows that American cars and SUVs look obsolete after only a few years. I have an 08 and love it. Paying more for an unreliable vehicle doesn’t make sense.
How does the Ford's 6000 lbs towing capacity beat the 8500 lbs of the Armada? And i was told by the Ford dealer the expedition is no longer based on the f150 chassis. Which accounts for it's shit towing capacity.
I see a few people questioning The Tahoe getting better fuel economy than the Expedition. When you hit that gas pedal and those turbos spool up, efficiency is gone. I learned this when I was in Germany and had a Ford focus with an ecoboost on the Autobahn. It couldn't keep up with German cars, and it drank gas rather quickly.
Also I hear about people getting 200k out of their ecoboost, I would think that is mainly highway miles, not really putting a workload on it. Not saying that it's a bad engine, I rather the V8.
The Chevrolet Tahoe LS does not come available with a power liftgate, does not have a 40/20/40 split second row seat, and does not have a head restraint on the middle of the second row, and a head restraint on the middle of the third row.
MrCarGuy20 I’m full on rooting for expedition in this video but you are so right. I rented one in San Francisco and the cloth was so nice, it was like 80’s velour. The seats were well padded too.
Great comparison , but if you had to comfortably haul a family of six adult sized individuals , and pack enough luggage for a long vacation which SUV would be best ?
Looking on Autotrader for the average price of the 2008 models of each car, you appear to be correct. Sequoia: $16,763, Tahoe: $15,081, Armada $10,704, Expedition $10,761
@@MJ47 bought 4 brand new cars. Always had it easier to negotiate the price. More over when you wait to buy your car by the end of the quarter... Used cars, they don't care about selling those
@@Ulghart The average person owns 13 cars in a lifetime, each costing an average of $30,000, according to a report by the National Automobile Dealers Association. If each of those cars was 3 years old, instead of new, you could save nearly $130,000 during your lifetime. The real money-saver in buying a used car is wrapped up in a sinister-sounding financial word:*depreciation.*
@@MJ47 I don't change my car every 3 years, and usually used cars require extra money changing tires break pads, rotors and regular maintenance. I don't know about statistics, in my personal experience, it works better to go for brand new cars.
Until the turbos burn up at 20,000 miles. I can't tell you how many turbos I've had to replace on friend's Fords (no matter what the engine size) because the turbos are burning up. All because of the solenoid that closes to warm them up quicker in colder months. It's doing more harm than good.
The turbos aren't too bad to replace. The kicker is all the owners of the Fords that I've worked on tell me they don't let their vehicles warm up in the morning, especially when it's cold outside. I think if they let their vehicles run for a minute or two before taking off first thing, it would postpone if not completely avoid the turbos being destroyed. Honestly, I've never heard of the glazed cylinder walls from the AFM on GM vehicles. I know earlier models of Chevy trucks from around 2008 to 2013 that had AFM had issues with lifters breaking, but I don't see any issues with the newer gen GM trucks with AFM. I bought my 2016 Silverado brand new with only 9 miles on it, and now has 32,000 trouble free miles. I do change my oil religiously every 5,000 miles, and even stuck a borescope in the engine to check out the cylinder walls and the valves and everything looks just fine. But thanks for the heads up! I'll have to keep a closer eye on the cylinder walls.
Ive been driving a 2019 Expedition Max Limited. Great vehicle all around but I can see why the GM SUVS sell more ve a long shot. They're big but they handle smaller. Turning radius is better on a Tahoe and even though it's big it doesn't feel like your driving a couch.
Impressive that the armada got 2nd considering the patrol platform is already almost 10 years old. Nissan really knows how to build cars for the long run.
@@jeffreyes1568 Although your '08 is a great vehicle, the '18 is a completely different vehicle. Different body, chassis, suspension, engine, transmission, interior, everything. We've had an '05, '11, and an '05 Titan. I loved them! We now have an '11 QX56. We love that too! I'd like to get a '17 Armada next.
I think they all are good suvs cant go wrong with them, however if you were to go for tahoe, it would probably make more sense to upgrade to the suburban since they are same price
I like Tahoe even Suburban and Escalade but i admit that Expedition is quite nice too. It's full of technology, and i think the build quality is at high level. Based on reviews and consumer experience.
The expeditions/navigators are going to have serious electrical problems. It’s too complicated a vehicle. Look at what happened with the new continental and then add some complexity.
Be careful with the armada. I was upgraded to one just e days ago and while I absolutely loved the looks, power and overall practicality, the front suspension get really upset when you hit bumps on the road above 40 mph.
Man O War I actually agree with the verdict and that is coming from someone with the Tahoe. The Tahoe's interior is awful. Everything is oversized including the pillars eliminating ALOT of visibility.
More plastic in that Ford than a Fisher Price factory, a parlor trick for an engine, and at that price tag, you can go to a Navigator, so the value sucks. Nice choice, MotorWeek.
I will keep buying a dinosaur over any over priced suv that will not last! Love my 2014 dinosaur! I know it will not let me down! Nothing beats a Sequoia! It's a Toyota!
i believe that the armada should’ve been third and the sequoia should stay last place because they’re both lacking android auto and apple carplay which are like big selling points for journalist today
@@youngmoonyohnj1099 i know but still...as great as the Corvette was, asking anyone to pay above a certain price range was really pushing it. The Tahoe has only been as good as it has because it and Escalade have been consistent top sellers in the segment for idk how many years
Exactly! I want to hear the nice sound system I paid for instead. Engine noise only makes it seem like the car is struggling just to gain speed. I want my luxury WITH my performance.
I just cant figure out who can afford these suv's? 20 yrs ago a loaded Tahoe or Expedition was 40 to 45k. Now they are just shy of double the price. Do they get double mpg, last 2x as long, did your pay check double in 20yrs? NO! Just remove all the fancy shit and make cars/trucks/suvs affordable again. I like the TT v6 in the Fords. But Ford as well as pretty much every brand now is mistaken. While driving nice turbos might give better mpg then NA. But the second you start towing or driving spirtedly its as bad and worse then NA. So whats the point?
I see a lot of Ecoboost twin turbo's traded in with one or both of the turbo's failing before 100k. They're super powerful and smooth...until they're not.
