Full size SUV recommendations?
 

I'll be driving to the mountains at least one a month. Frequently in snow. I need a vehicle that carries 7 and handles snow reasonably well. No off road use. I want it to big, comfortable and safe. I'll buy used, but it needs NAV and bluetooth. Maybe 3-5 years old. Price not the biggest concern, but I don't want to repair a Mercedes or a Porsche Cayenne.

Any thoughts?

7 adults or jumpseat for the 3rd row ok?
We love our GX470 (tarted up 4-runner but much larger inside). Just had 8 (4 adults, 2 teens, and 8 year old and a 6 year old) in mine for a dinner trip. I was amazed at how comfortable it was.

Absolutely love the truck, seriously. If you want bigger go with the Land Cruiser, that things a monster.

Excellent recommendation for the Lexus!! Body on frame if you care about such things. If you want bigger, as mentioned there's the Land Cruiser...or the tarted up version, the Lexus LX.

Can't go wrong with either.

Late model Suburban is what you need. They are great, dependable rigs and really really nice+safe.

7 adults or are some of them kids. 7 adults rules out some of the almost full size SUV's.

Rented a Suburban for three weeks in Montana last summer. Loverd the engine and trans. Shifted manually it would hold it's decent speed until you touched the brake or accelorator. Cylinder deactivation meant I was getting a computer posted not measured 18-20 mpg. I'm biased and not a Chevy fan so by the end of week one some of the inside features were bugging me. The solid axle rear means that there is no footwell for the third row passengers so they better be short legged. Also the third row seat has to remved to use the rear for cargo.

I own and really like an 04 Expedition. It gives up power to the Suburban but has a more comfortable ride to me wiht independent rear suspension. Also the rear seats fold into the floor well. Adults fit better in the back b/c of dropped floor. Regular Expedition won't have much cargo room at all with rear seats up for passengers...but Ford now makes a long wheelbase Expedition to solve that.

My Expedition is 4wd and handles the mud/dirt/snow well. Has true low range as well as 'auto' mode. Amazingly enough we got 10 inches of snow two years ago and it did well.

Buddy has an older Toyota Tundra and loves it. Much like the Ford, though full of people there is little cargo space. He was warned off the newer Tundra's with 5 spd auto trans by a Toyota factory tech which is why he went with older model.

J

I've had a Suburban and currently have a Volvo XC90. Both are seven pax, cruise up to Tahoe (uphill) with a full load no problem. XC90 much better appointed, better handling. But the rear seats are for kids and you lose most of the storage. If you want 7 + skis/luggage, get a 'Burb.

We just sold our 2004 Nissan Armada with 110k, it was a fantastic SUV. The Armada is bigger than the Tahoe, Expedition, and Durango but smaller than a Suburban. The 2nd row is huge, and the 3rd row is adult capable. LOTS of power from the DOHC 5.6L V8 that sounds like a muscle car, and the ride was much better controlled than the other SUVs that we drove (and we drove them all). They are cheaper than a Sequoia and comparably priced to the domestics. Give them a serious look. If you want more luxury, the Infiniti QX56 is identical.

Toyota Land Cruiser. You simply can not go wrong.

I've never owned one but I have driven one extensively in the "out back" for work.
I carried lots of tools, tent, camping gear and water. Two spares and enough supplies for 10 days at a time. When needed I also doubled as a (free) taxi driver for the local aborigines.

I could write pages and pages about my travels with that truck. I had the time of my life.
And she never let me down in any way.

Tyres? Cooper. End of story.

One of the Toyotas. Size to taste. 4Runner, Sequoia, Land Cruiser. Expensive yes. Reliable yes. Great resale yes. I don't think you will ever find anyone that has a bad thing to say about the Toyota SUV's.

Ford Excursion. or Suburban

I can't say enough good about my beater 91 Suburban. Bought for $850. Runs like a top. Inspires fear in others through massive size and redneck decay.

Not a classy ride in the slightest but it does the job every time. And have you seen how cheap domestic truck parts are? Wow.

All good choices above. Something we do not lack in the US is good cheap trucks.

Larry

The Toyotas are great, I'm a huge Land Cruiser fan. But you won't carry 7 adults in comfort for very long in one, and the new ones are silly expensive. As for the 4Runner, again great SUVs. But 7 people isn't happening. The Sequioa is their only true full sized SUV, but I don't think it is worth the 20% premium over an Armada.

The other thing to consider about a Suburban or Expedition is that most parts are dirt cheap and available everywhere.

I would recommend a 2007-up Suburban-length GM, whether it's a Sub, Yukon XL, Denali XL, or Escalade ESV. If you've got the money, I'd suggest the 6.2L 6 speed in the higher trim levels (std Denali/Escalade) -- 403 horsepower, 417 ft-lb torque, and still get nearly 20 mpg cruising the freeway with a steady foot.

The GX and Landcruiser are fine, but the third row is an afterthought for bilateral amputees.

If you drink the Toyota Kool-Aid, just buy a current-gen Sequoia and be done with it. Smaller than a Burb, but still powerful and comfortable, and way bigger than the GX/LX Lexii.

Also consider the Mercedes GL450 (Bluetec!) but, again, the third row is smaller than the Burb but still bigger than the Lexii

If you just cannot buy a GM, Ford makes an extended length (EL) Expedition or long (L) Navigator that is a great alternative. They do have an independent rear suspension, and the third row seats fold flush (if that's important). The old 5.4L is nearly 100 horses down from the GMs yet gets the same fuel economy. I wish they fit the new 5.0L or 6.2L, or even the 3.5L EcoBoost.....maybe soon. With the extended Expy/Navi there is zero reason for you to consider an old Excursion....they pale in comparison.

Also, don't laugh, look at the GM Lambdas.....GMC Acadia, Chev Traverse, Buick Enclave. They are bigger inside than a Tahoe, but smaller than a Burb -- mostly behind the third seat, the third seat itself is comparable in size/comfort to a Burb. But being a car-based front-drive-based platform it isn't truck-like in its dynamic attributes. It's the largest crossover, by far. If you're looking for passenger comfort and not cargo space or ability to tow, it might be a good fit.

Smaller 7 passenger crossovers that might work: current Dodge Durango (built on MBZ GL platform), Ford Flex or even Explorer, Lincoln MKT, Toyota Highlander, Honda Pilot, Audi Q7 (stretched Touareg/Cayenne),

As Matt mentioned, the Nissan Armada or Infiniti QX56 are bigger than the Tahoe/Expedition (std) but smaller than a Burb or Expedition EL. It might work. Even though it's an aging platform and drivetrain, they are competitive. Plenty of torque. Fuel economy sucks. Independent rear suspension. Flush folding third row.

Still, I'd end up with a Burb. There's nothing they don't do pretty well, and you'll never find yourself wishing you had gone bigger.

One more thing......


Whatever 3-5 year old vehicle you buy, skip the NAV/Bluetooth criteria.... a cheap Garmin or TomTom (et al) has better navigation and Bluetooth functionality.

GM's OnStar provides a more powerful digital send/receive than any cell phone if you're driving in spotty mountain coverage. If you're with Verizon you just add it as another line to your plan ($9/mo) and it has its own number, and/or you can forward your cell to it when you take long trips. Completely hands-free, voice activated, and OnStar operator assisted when you'd like. Fantastic alternative to Bluetooth, and much better when signal is weak.

Other manufacturers offer similar telemetry (most are just re-branded OnStar) that may offer similar features. Worth a look.

I rented a Suburban this past week in Montana. I put over 1500 miles on it, from Decker to Whitefish and all points in between. There were three of us and a lot of gear. The roads varied from gravel to interstate, mountains to Prairies, even did Glacier. The rental had 17k on it when we picked it up. We did not use the third seat due to gear

The Good

- Large hauling capacity (duh) but drives like a smaller SUV (I have a Toyota 4Runner). I never felt constrained by the Subs size.

- Nice interior. Mine had leather, etc. Great seat heat.

- The multifunction rear cargo door was great.

- Sunroof was huge.

- Dual climate controls and headsets were great.

The Bad

- Noisy...I was surprised at the amount of wind noise at 75/80 mph.

- The ergonomics of the various controls took a bit getting used to.

- Rattled just a bit...nothing annoying but it was noticeable at times.

- The engine/transmission combo was a bit disappointing. It really hunted for gears and the downshift was annoying on even small hills, especially in cruise control. I would definitely look at the 3/4 ton with the biggest motor available.

Overall I was very satisfied. I am looking for a large SUV as well and that was one of the reasons I rented the Sub.

The standard 5.3L is somewhat strained in a Burb loaded with passengers and cargo....heck, it's just okay when empty.

All 1/2 ton Chevrolet Suburbans have the 5.3L (320 hp / 335 ft-lb) with a 3.08 rear end (3.42 optional)......you likely rented a 5.3L with 3.08 = dog

All 3/4 ton Chevrolet Suburbans have the older 6.0L (352 hp / 382 ft-lb) with a 3.73 rear end

All GMC Denalis and Cadillac Escalades have the newer 6.2L (403 hp / 417 ft-lb) with a 3.42 rear end

All have 6 speed transmissions, the 6.0L backed by the heavy-duty 6L90E where the 5.3L and 6.2L have the 6L80E.....basically the 90 is the same trans with heavier duty sprag gears and different shift strategies.

It's clear that the Denali/Escalade is the winner, even compared to a 3/4 ton Burb.....unless you're towing a really big trailer (over 8000 pounds) where the stronger mounts, bigger bearings, leaf springs (ugh!) and full-floating rear axle would be of needed benefit.
Otherwise 50 more horsepower and 35 more ft-lb torque trumps the extra 1000 pounds towing capacity.






If all you've ever driven is a rental Burb with the 5.3L and 3.08 gears, you OWE it to yourself to drive a Escalade/Denali 6.2L with 3.42 gears.......75 extra horses and 80 extra ft-lb leveraged by deeper gearing REALLY makes a difference






YMMV

Not to highjack, but my wife tows a horse trailer at least twice a month so I am looking at the 3/4 Burb. We discussed getting a 3/4 truck but I really like my 2005 F150 and see no reason to sell it.

I'll take over the 4Runner for the DD.

I really liked the ride and handling of the Suburban...I am sure the larger engine will address any issues I had with the power train on the rental.

Thanks for all the info!

Not true. The Sub's rear axle is under/behind the third row. The third row's footwell is exactly the same height as the second row's.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1344527052.jpg

Then buy a Denali XL or Escalade ESV and fit E-load range tires. It will tow 8000 pounds (with stock tires) compared to the Sub 3/4's 9400 lbs.

I seriously doubt your loaded tongue-tow horse trailer weighs more than 8000 pounds!

The 3/4 ton weighs 420 pounds more than the Denali XL or Cadillac ESV, has less power/torque, gets worse fuel economy (partly the 3.73 gear but mostly the weight and less efficient older motor), and rides much rougher (leaf springs and heavier rear axle). Almost all the added weight is the rear suspension. The leafs (and related perches and hardware) are heavier than the air coils, and the full-floating axle weighs a couple hundred pounds more by itself (all unsprung weight!). The larger 39 gallon fuel tank (vs 31.5) weighs more empty, but really weighs more full....adding to the 420 lb delta. And before you say that the extra fuel capacity is ultra-important, consider your wife's bladder capacity versus a 5-6 hour fuel range towing.

Brakes? Exactly the same as the Denali/Escalade
Frame? Exactly the same as the Denali/Escalade
Radiator? Exactly the same as the Denali/Escalade
Transmission and engine oil coolers? Exactly the same as the Denali/Escalade
Gearing? The transmissions have exactly the same ratios, so the 3.73 vs 3.42 is offset by the extra power of the 6.2L. The mechanical leverage is about the same multiplying 417 ft-lb x 3.42 than 382 ft-lb x 3.73..... but you're still carrying at least 420 pounds more truck.

So... buy a "half ton" Denali XL/Escalade ESV, swap to E load range tires (the real reason the Denali/Escalade aren't rated to tow as much -- tire capacity is the bottleneck) and you'll LOVE it

You can trust me, or not. I'm used to it :D




Now.... my previous generation 2003 Suburban with the 8.1L is a way different story, and it is rated to tow 12,000 pounds. The new ones simply don't have the same advantage as they used to.