A little help...Tahoe or Expedition
05-16-2010, 06:34 AM
#1
Back From The dead
Thread Starter
A little help...Tahoe or Expedition
To make a long story short, I'm going to have to tow a 16' enclosed trailer with a combined weight of about 5,000 lbs one or twice a month. I need to get in to something to capable of towing, but also family friendly in the next day or two.
Anyone with ownership have any advice they can offer for or against either? Looking at late model low mileage units in the NY metro area NOW.
Anyone with ownership have any advice they can offer for or against either? Looking at late model low mileage units in the NY metro area NOW.
05-16-2010, 06:38 AM
#2
Stage 1 Audi S5
My family has always had Ford Super Dutys to pull the horses with no problems so I would go with the Ford. That being said I love the styling of the new Tahoes so I'm really no help 
05-16-2010, 10:36 AM
#3
I use an Expedition to tow a car trailer and cars. It's been very reliable and trouble free. My only complaint is the rather poor fuel mileage.
Terry
Terry
05-16-2010, 11:12 AM
#5
Registered Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I really don't see how people are judging vehicles based on a totally different vehicle (Super Duty) in Ford's lineup.
I'll say this though: Ford has the better truck for a three row vehicle. If you need only towing and two rows, I'd go Tahoe.
I'll say this though: Ford has the better truck for a three row vehicle. If you need only towing and two rows, I'd go Tahoe.
05-16-2010, 11:30 AM
#7
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
Tahoe. BRO.
Trending Topics
05-16-2010, 01:13 PM
#9
Terry
05-16-2010, 02:02 PM
#10
Stage 1 Audi S5
I have Ford trucks for commercial farm use. They're probably worked harder than what most people do with their trucks, and overall they've been very good. Tried a GM and Dodge at one time, and although both worked reasonably well, they were both traded for Fords which have been much more trouble free.
Terry
Terry
05-16-2010, 04:14 PM
#12
Back From The dead
Thread Starter
I may also the the Armada in to the mix. I would almost feel more comfortable going Nissan, but I have NO history with Nissan V8's
05-16-2010, 09:54 PM
#14
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Age: 44
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've owned both a Ford Expedition as well as currently own a GMC Yukon (same as Tahoe) I would go with the Tahoe and not just for style points.
05-17-2010, 06:40 AM
#16
Back From The dead
Thread Starter
Ok, have to go pre owned and have to do it today.
Have it narrowed down to, and all in the same price range:
07 Lexus GX Certified 49k miles
07 Eddie Bauer 34k miles
07 Navigator 32k miles
07 Sequoia Ltd 34K miles
07 Infiniti QX56 38k miles
07 Denali 19k miles (no nav)
My head is spinning
Have it narrowed down to, and all in the same price range:
07 Lexus GX Certified 49k miles
07 Eddie Bauer 34k miles
07 Navigator 32k miles
07 Sequoia Ltd 34K miles
07 Infiniti QX56 38k miles
07 Denali 19k miles (no nav)
My head is spinning
05-17-2010, 09:29 AM
#18
Safety Car
The QX will have the strongest feeling engine in that group period. That V8 from Nissan is one TORQUE monster. I use to have a Nissan Titan, and at work we had Ford F150s with the 5.4L, and the Titan could pull the large trailers way easier than the Ford's could. Also QX isn't small at all and has plenty of hauling space inside. I know two people who had Denali's and got rid of them because of many issues and the cost of repairs. I would get a Toyota, Ford, Nissan over a GM.
05-17-2010, 08:04 PM
#20
Back From The dead
Thread Starter
Turns out the Denali had more hp and torque, plus a 6spd automatic and lots of goodies as well. The QX was used up and the Armada was way over priced. The Eddie Bauer was an 06, not an 07. It had a 4spd auto, and seemed way under powered. Acceleration was poor with no load, so I was concerned about trying to pull 5,000lbs plus. It did have heated AND cooled seats which would have been great, but no blue tooth or ipod connector which come in handy on the long trips. The Lexus just seemed wrong for a vehicle I was towing equipment to construction sites with, so I had to pass.
Winner...Denali
Winner...Denali
05-17-2010, 10:13 PM
#21
Safety Car
Hmmm, race a Denali vs a Titan or QX56, and you will be surprised to see that numbers do not mean everything when the Titan/QX will leave it in the dust.
05-17-2010, 10:38 PM
#22
Registered Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the Denali is the quicker of the two. Even magazines place the Denali as low as 6.2 0-60 and 94 mph in the quarter mile.
Plus the Denali's interior is way better and it's quieter inside.
05-18-2010, 08:04 AM
#23
Safety Car
Really? Again numbers means nothing.
Denali vs Armada
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drtBgakNyzk
Not a Denali but a Tahoe Z71
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0s-Vnf9G48
And just for grins...don't underestimate that engine in them.
SRT 10 vs Titan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4ekRNnDUko
Duramax Stage 3 vs Titan
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0272883107416#
Cummings vs Titan
http://www.streetfire.net/video/tita...iew_127969.htm
05-18-2010, 08:28 AM
#24
Registered Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Course it isn't just about numbers. The VK56 is a pretty under-rated engine as far as output is concerned.
The VK56 is a superb engine. I believe even in my first post I said it was a great powertrain setup but the rest of the truck was meh.
So what you've provided is one video. The 2008 Tahoe didn't offer the L92 so the Tahoe video just proves the 5.3L is slower....? The video at the top has the Denali winning at the end it appears. It looks like out of the hole in that race on that day the QX was quicker but once the power boils on the Denali tiptoes away.
Even so one video doesn't prove either truck is quicker.
A quick breeze on reviews and comparos of MotorTrend and C/D confirm my thoughts: I don't see any consistent QX or Armada times of more than 88-89 in the quarter and I see consistent over 90 mph quarters for the Denali, more in the 92-94 range.
05-18-2010, 08:58 AM
#25
Safety Car
You kept saying QX/Titan which didn't make sense. Armada/QX would've been better; I'm anal can you tell?
Course it isn't just about numbers. The VK56 is a pretty under-rated engine as far as output is concerned.
The VK56 is a superb engine. I believe even in my first post I said it was a great powertrain setup but the rest of the truck was meh.
So what you've provided is one video. The 2008 Tahoe didn't offer the L92 so the Tahoe video just proves the 5.3L is slower....? The video at the top has the Denali winning at the end it appears. It looks like out of the hole in that race on that day the QX was quicker but once the power boils on the Denali tiptoes away.
Even so one video doesn't prove either truck is quicker.
A quick breeze on reviews and comparos of MotorTrend and C/D confirm my thoughts: I don't see any consistent QX or Armada times of more than 88-89 in the quarter and I see consistent over 90 mph quarters for the Denali, more in the 92-94 range.
Course it isn't just about numbers. The VK56 is a pretty under-rated engine as far as output is concerned.
The VK56 is a superb engine. I believe even in my first post I said it was a great powertrain setup but the rest of the truck was meh.
So what you've provided is one video. The 2008 Tahoe didn't offer the L92 so the Tahoe video just proves the 5.3L is slower....? The video at the top has the Denali winning at the end it appears. It looks like out of the hole in that race on that day the QX was quicker but once the power boils on the Denali tiptoes away.
Even so one video doesn't prove either truck is quicker.
A quick breeze on reviews and comparos of MotorTrend and C/D confirm my thoughts: I don't see any consistent QX or Armada times of more than 88-89 in the quarter and I see consistent over 90 mph quarters for the Denali, more in the 92-94 range.
05-18-2010, 10:02 AM
#26
Registered Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-18-2010, 11:15 AM
#27
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was mentioned the QX which is a Armada.
Really? Again numbers means nothing.
Denali vs Armada
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drtBgakNyzk
Really? Again numbers means nothing.
Denali vs Armada
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drtBgakNyzk
05-18-2010, 03:20 PM
#28
Back From The dead
Thread Starter
Uh, yes...I bought the Denali. As I said above, the QX was used up. In other words, beat up, not taken care of...crapped. The Armada was over priced for the miles and options and the Denali, well
I beat the dealer up pretty well. It has the 6.2l and the 6 spd auto with only 19k miles. I walked out with a 3 year GM full warranty for just over $30k. I couldn't not but it.
I beat the dealer up pretty well. It has the 6.2l and the 6 spd auto with only 19k miles. I walked out with a 3 year GM full warranty for just over $30k. I couldn't not but it.
05-18-2010, 04:57 PM
#30
Registered Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uh, yes...I bought the Denali. As I said above, the QX was used up. In other words, beat up, not taken care of...crapped. The Armada was over priced for the miles and options and the Denali, well
I beat the dealer up pretty well. It has the 6.2l and the 6 spd auto with only 19k miles. I walked out with a 3 year GM full warranty for just over $30k. I couldn't not but it.
I beat the dealer up pretty well. It has the 6.2l and the 6 spd auto with only 19k miles. I walked out with a 3 year GM full warranty for just over $30k. I couldn't not but it.
05-18-2010, 10:41 PM
#31
Back From The dead
Thread Starter
Pics it is...
05-19-2010, 04:23 AM
#33
Back From The dead
Thread Starter
bad camera phone pics. crappy color showing, or maybe it's my monitor? It's a steel blue
05-20-2010, 08:02 AM
#35
Back From The dead
Thread Starter
In comparing everything available in the time frame I had, the Denali was the best value for the money...and performance for the task. I could turn around right now and sell it for more than I paid if I had to, and I can tow without a problem
05-20-2010, 09:50 AM
#37
Back From The dead
Thread Starter
bad pic, looks better in person. The fake wood is really dark and blends alot more
05-20-2010, 11:35 AM
#38
Corn-Fed Mule
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: All Up In Dat AZZ...Beotch!
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Eh, while I love the Tahoe/Denali twins, I'm thinking GMC didn't do too good a job on the front and rear vs. Chevy. I saw a white Tahoe at our last Texas Fair with the chrome wire grille inserts and it looked hot! Very classy and understated. The GMC, eh, not so much. It may be the "googly eyes" look of the headlights and the Ebay tail lights? The Chevy, with the blackout headlight housings and neat grille design looks timeless. Just an opinion! The OP's new vehicle is still hot, though! I'd take one in a heartbeat...
05-20-2010, 04:26 PM
#39
Back From The dead
Thread Starter
Absolutely, I love the Tahoe front end...don't really dig the Dinali front end. But then again, I drive a 4G TL!
Last edited by NJ SHAWD; 05-20-2010 at 04:29 PM.
05-20-2010, 07:41 PM
#40
Senior Moderator
iTrader: (1)
Congrats!