Nissan wants you to buy the Armada LE 4×4 to "Live Big." Someone needs to tell these guys that conspicuous consumption is dead– at least for those car buyers who can no longer afford it. While the high and low ends of the SUV market are still relatively robust, big-ass trucks in the former "sweet spot" are giving potential buyers a toothache. It may have something to do with the price of gas. Or ruinous depreciation. Which is a shame. The Nissan Armada is a damn Skippy good truck; you know, if you used to like that kind of thing.
The Armada is a paid-up subscriber to the Japanese school of design. Small details rule. The rounded arches over the Armada's doors look cool. Hidden rear door handles get props. Now, take a step back… Another one… NOW you can see that those bulging fenders are more Mitsubishi Starion shazzam than Audi Quattro cool. Who the Hell would be fooled into thinking the Armada only has two doors? And yes, that Nissan emblem on the grill really IS the size of a dinner plate.
Taken as a whole, the Armada is a mish-mash of bulky truck clichés. I'm not saying it's derivative, but the Honda Pilot, Land Rover Discovery and Chevrolet Tahoe called. They want their everything back.
Climbing into the Armada's cabin, I got lost. Tom Tom says turn left at the center arm rest, another left at the climate control, and you will arrive at the steering wheel. Nissan has upgraded the SUV's cavernous interior to great effect. Acres of dash are covered in sensually squidgy plastics in pleasant desert hues. Buttons still litter the center stack layout like scattered Lego, but a cool aluminum iDrive-like twist knob below an LCD screen makes access to ancillary systems easy.
The strip of ersatz timber separating the upper and lower dash and the silver plastic surrounding the Armada's shifter are about as convincingly upmarket as $10 Prada sunglasses. Escaping the aesthetic affront presents its own set of challenges; access to the way back requires agility, persistence, experience and a ready supply of Shrek Band-Aids.
For the 2007 model year, Nissan upgraded the SUV's 300bhp 5.6-liter V8 to a more robust 315bhp (or 317, depending on which promotional materials you read). This launches the Black Pearl-sized vessel from no-wake to an ocean-going 60mph in about 7.5 seconds. Unlike the Tundra-based Sequoia, the Titan-based Armada is in no hurry to prove the point. The big Nissan's tip-in is leisurely, and the five-speed slushbox likes any gear as long as it's the one that delivers the best fuel economy.
Speaking of which, the Armada's V8 is touted as the world's most efficient 5.6-liter V8! AND the gigantic FlexFuel badges proclaim the truck's E85 ability. Yes, well, you'd have to be a well-heeled corn grower to put up with 25 percent to 30 percent less fuel efficiency than the Armada's "normal" 15mpg EPA combined cycle.
How Nissan made the Armada handle as well as the smaller XTerra amazes me. With nearly three tons of mass pushing at marginally adequate tires, the Armada rolls only slightly, hangs on, and never loses its composure. Broken pavement causes the front end to skip to the side, but control quickly returns.
Obviously, no one takes an Armada around a corner. But if you did, understeer rules the day. Still, you never feel as though the Nissan really WANTS to plow straight ahead into the nearest guard rail. The options list included speed-sensitive steering. The only change I felt was a gentle transition from finger-twirling light, to not-quite-a-zombie on center helmsmanship. To feel the road in an Armada means pulling over and getting out. Which, in a beast weighing 5675lbs, might take a while.
Off-road, the Armada reveals its true purpose: the school run. Dial the switch to 4×4 High, wait ‘til the light goes out and then… fuhgeddaboutit. The standard running boards snag everything taller than forest squirrels. Grinning slightly at the amused salesman when we got high centered at the Land Rover off-road demo course, I engaged 4×4 Low, felt a shimmy and a crunch. And then the body quivered as the Armada scraped its belly off the obstacle. Not exactly safari material.
Who cares? There are very few full-size SUVs that shouldn't be something else. For the most part, these days, they are. Only their ancestors still roam the earth, sucking gas, threatening to squish all those funny-looking CUVs and the, what do they call them? Cars. Still, if you're one of those people who doesn't know when to leave a party, the Armada is a solid choice. It's comfy, safe (at least for you), tows stuff and, uh, that's it.
A co-worker has one of these monstrosities. It has yet to see anything but smooth pavement. Strikes me as an enormous waste.
WOW! i was right there with you until you said $47,600.
maybe i’m out of touch, but that seems like WAY too much. how long until we’re mortgaging our family trucksters?
anything over $40K had better inspire lust.
Maybe GM could license their 2mode transmission to get the behemoth rolling easier. These things are huge, I was drafting one on my bike and it was like following a UPS truck.
One of my buddies has one of these. He also has 4 kids – a 15 year old cheerleader, twins age 3, and a 1 year old; as a result, the amount of junk (strollers, diaper bags, toys, cheerleaders) he is parentally obligated to schlep around is ridiculous, and this gargantuan SUV is up to the task – it has room for everything, and it has all the toys like dvd screens and crap like that. I have to admit it is pretty cool. I’m glad he didn’t buy the QX56 – they almost did. At least when the whole family is on board they are getting 15 mpg with 6 people. Fair enough.
His other car – A Mini Cooper S.
One word, “Why?”.
And let’s be honest: in the world of big boxy, not very attractive SUVs, the Nissan may be the worse looking: it looks as if it crashed against a semi and was all accordeoned, with the strange roof plunging into the C-pillar before continuing straight. Only some luxury SUVs such as the Escalade, QX56 twin and new Lexus whatever570 look worse, mostly because of their overabundance of chrome.
The roofline reminds me of a 62 Rambler station wagon. Not that that’s a bad thing.
http://www.answers.com/topic/ramblerclassicwag1962-jpg-1
I test drove a 2008 QX56 a few months ago. I agree with many of the comments in this review. I will say that at least the Armada doesn’t have the Frankenstein front clip.
The Nissan isn’t a bad value compared to the QX. A loaded Suburban, Yukon, or Expedition are in the same neighborhood price-wise.
“How Nissan made the Armada handle as well as the smaller XTerra amazes me.”
Actually it was easy: by eliminating every vestigial remnant of off-road capability. The Xterra is one of those exceptionally rare SUVs that still maintain some pretensions of being used offroad, even if they are never used that way in actuality.
“Off-road, the Armada reveals its true purpose: the school run …. Not exactly safari material.”
Like somebody wrote above, 99.99 percent of these will never go off paved roads. Which strikes me as a fairly pointless reason for its existence.
This monstrosity will never be used for anything that could not be easily handled by a minivan, at double or more the gas mileage. With all the bloviating about “alternative energy sources ” and legislating hydrogen this and hybrid that, it would seem the obvious solution to a lot of our problems would also be pretty darned painless.
I drove one of these when they first came out, and didn’t care for the ride quality or the handling. Sounds like they’ve improved the chassis over the last four years.
TrueDelta has no reliability info on this one yet. But a few Armada owners have emailed me, generally with positive things to say. Despite the low reliability ratings elsewhere, I have not heard horror stories about this one.
http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
jd arms :
At least when the whole family is on board they are getting 15 mpg with 6 people. Fair enough.
I get 26 highway in my ’03 Odyssey, 18 city, with 6 people (4 adults, 2 kids) on board. And judging from the review, I have roughly the same amount of off-road capability.
Someone forgot to mention the $4.00 a gallon for a regular.
I get 26 highway in my ‘03 Odyssey, 18 city, with 6 people (4 adults, 2 kids) on board. And judging from the review, I have roughly the same amount of off-road capability.
WOW! You have an exceptional Odyssey (or I have a bad one). Ours averages about 16-17 mpg in town with just my wife driving most of the time with no other passengers. On a recent trip, we got 19 mpg (mixed, but a good bit highway) with my wife, myself, our four year old, and a couple of overnight bags.
We love the Odyssey, but I’m glad we didn’t get it for the mileage…
Comparing an Armada to a minivan is ludicrous. To keep it in terms the commenters here will understand: that’s like comparing the interior room of a MINI to that of an Audi A8.
We liked our minivan (Voyager), but it wasn’t very comfortable for anyone taller than 6 feet (like myself, and most of my extended family), and couldn’t get out of its way with the wimpy engine with more than two people on board.
The Armada rights all of those wrongs. We didn’t need the third row, but did need more cargo carrying capacity, so we went with the Titan instead: love it! Fuel prices be damned.
1:32PM
14 comments.
yup, the SUV party is over.
bfg9k
I hear you. Personally, I think a minivan with thule/yakima system might make more sense. I don’t know what the aerodynamic penalty would be in terms of fuel efficiency.
They rarely go up to the snow – we live near the Sierras. I haven’t asked, but I bet the “mommy likes to see over traffic”, as well as the “I wouldn’t be caught dead in a minivan” factors are at work here as well.
A little off-topic here, but I was killing time at a Mazda dealership yesterday – they have some pretty cool little cars – and the sales guy I was shooting the shyte with was telling me that he hasn’t moved a CX-7 or CX-9 in weeks. It is all Mazda 3s. We both wondered why they don’t put the hybrid system from the Tribute into the CXs. And while I think the RX-8 and the MX-5 are cool, if they could make the Mazda 5 a little more powerful, it would be outstanding – especially if they could make it part-time AWD. That was the coolest car there. We need more European style cars here…I want a Renault Megane.
I’m going to disagree. Gas could go to $5 or even $10 per gallon, and people will still buy & drive these monstrosities. Because they *need* them, or they *deserve* them.
I have only two words to say: Station Wagon.
99.9999 percent of its life will be spent on paved roads. Which on further consideration, is probably a good thing since it lacks any off road capability.
Statistically, 80 or 90 percent of its life will probably be spent ferrying one person on their daily commute on dry paved roads.
Statistically, it will never be used to tow anything.
It might, just might, achieve 15 mpg on a windless day on a level freeway. If you were babying it.
Mike, thanks for calling these things what they are – trucks! SUV owners just hate it when I use that word when referring to their vehicles.
This is a LE model that was tested. Nissan does make and offer an “SE Off-Road” version for those that care, IIRC. Different wheels, tires, and suspension setup, higher ground clearance, less of the luxury options.
I don’t have any experience or opinion on the machine itself.
That being said, “Armada” has to be one of the ballsiest names out there. If a more mainstream brand called their biggest SUV “Armada” the Sierra Club would have a collective heart attack.
The poorly named vehicle does appear to be a competent example of s shrinking niche. Now if they would add a properly sized turbo diesel it would have potential.
I always thought it was one of the stupidest name choices out there. My first association with the word Armada is the Spanish fleet sent to invade England in 1588.
It would be like having the MINI “Flanders” and “Dunkirk” or the Toyota “Battan” or ” or the Mercedes “Kursk” or “Stalingrad”.
I don’t have, need or want a vehicle this large but I have to say I love the looks of the Armada (and Pathfinder) and yes the name too.
Maybe if it came with a Turbo Diesel Hybrid?
“”The Nissan isn’t a bad value compared to the QX. A loaded Suburban, Yukon, or Expedition are in the same neighborhood price-wise.””
But the others tow more and are more fuel efficient. Well, the Sub and Yukon are anyhow.
eggsalad,
If a person “needs” or “deserves” them, what makes you decide they shouldnt buy one (SUVs)? I dont understand why people on this site crap all over a person’s want for an SUV. Because its big? Because it wastes too much gas? Because its a hazard on the road? Why dont I see the same people giving the same comments about sports cars and the people who want those? Because sports cars are not gas sippers and I see more sports cars owners as reckless drivers then the SUV owners. I see more sports cars causing more accidents on the road.
So why do any of you care if people want them? Are they using your money to purchase them? Its their freedom as consumers to buy them. Sure there are alternatives to SUVs such as minivans or station wagons, but it’s their freedom to buy the SUV. I have a coworker with the Lincoln Navigator. He has 3 sons and 1 stepson so he NEEDS a vehicle that can transport a family of 6. Most station wagons dont have a third row bench so that was out of the question, and he said he wouldnt be caught dead driving a minivan (I personally dont blame him). So just because he has a large family, he should be condemned to have a minivan as the family vehicle? Anybody, please feel free to argue against my stance on this issue. I love debating
It’s people’s freedom as consumers to purchase SUV’s.
It’s also people’s freedom as people to have whatever opinion of those people they want. =P
“and he said he wouldnt be caught dead driving a minivan (I personally dont blame him)”And what, exactly, is the reason for this?
That’s the difference between ‘need’ and ‘want’ when it comes to SUVs, particularly the overly huge ones like the Armada and Navigator. Someone who ‘needs’ a practical vehicle to schlep around a family buys a minivan. People that buy big SUVs to carry the same group of people don’t ‘need’ a big SUV, they ‘want’ one. That’s where the scorn and derision of these people comes in. There is simply no justification to own vehicles of this size and type, other than their own personal, irrational belief that it’s a ‘need’.
Of course, there are those that claim to ‘need’ the towing capacity of a vehicle which can also carry a group of people at the same time. Well, guess what, the thing that needs to be towed is rarely a necessity, either. Get rid of the boat or trailer, and the need for a big, gas-guzzling SUV evaporates.
People make conscious choices to be wasteful, then try to rationalize those choices with flawed, circular logic. Manufacturers are more than happy to enable these so-called ‘needs’ by building large, inefficient SUVs like the Armada.
Sports cars are just as much of a ‘want’ as an SUV, but their impracticality in all areas approaches no where near the same level (with the exception of cargo-carrying capacity).
Well I guess if this gets three stars than the two stars for the Durango is fair enough. The Armada is a better car than the Durango.
I wonder if cars like this have ever had any kind of off road ability. All the Suburbans my family has owned have been 2wd versions. The Armada is what you use to tow your Jeep to the off road course not drive on it.
You have to buy the 3/4 ton Suburban to beat the Armadas tow rating. The Armada has 9100#. The Tahoe and 1/2 ton Suburban max out at 8000#
The Expedition has a 9200# rating.
I’d have to go with the Expedition EL in this class. The fold in the floor 3rd row and 6 speed transmission are advantages.
My only real beef with SUVs is the danger to other road users. Most of these trucks’ bumpers are at eye level with my son when he’s strapped into his car seat. Even a low-speed side impact would be disastrous (only to us, of course).
Now, if everyone decided that they need to sit high, we’d have an arms race on our hands. Soccer moms driving Kenworths? Not so unlikely, just look at the International lineup…
In the meantime, an 8 to 10 year old Volvo V70 station wagon which used to be known as a BIG car can get you over 30 mpg. For the family that has two kids and an occasional extra passenger or two it’s probably still the best deal around. One in exceptional condition can be had for only around 5 to 7 grand.
A Sienna or Odyssey can yield around 26 to 28 mpg under normal highway driving and even a gas swilling 3.3L Grand Caravan gets you 25. If you need more space, the minivan is a pretty good way to go. For towing anything under 4000 pounds as well, a minivan is perfectly fine. Some of the less efficient ones can still get you 20 to 22 mpg and tow 5,000 to 6,000 lbs. Just make sure you get a transmission cooler and change it more frequently.
I have to applaud Nissan for trying to make a large vehicle that is somewhat fun to drive (tested one a few weeks ago), and the interior is far better than the first generation. But in this market, a vehicle like the Armada is no longer worth it’s literal weight.
Now a Roadmaster… that’s a different story.
The most convincing argument I have heard for the SUV is the guy who said he has four kids and all their stuff to carry around. Almost convincing, almost. But for all those defending SUV’s and any gas guzzling sport cars. How will your children look at you when your old, when global warming has reeked it’s havoc and you drove around with your “I don’t give a damn about you”, polluter?
@ 05gt,
I don’t care whether someone “needs” this vehicle, or “wants” this vehicle. Its a good truck, no more, no less, just the token “soccer mom vehicle”. I have expectations about an SUV, and this one met some of them, failed in others.
People can choose as they want. I write how I feel about the truck, from my own opinion, and if if somebody still wants to buy it, then thats why we live in this great country, you can do whatever you want.
Yes, it’s true. This is America. If people feel they need or deserve an SUV, they are more than welcome to buy one.
Modern Americans shouldn’t have to care about the effects on their decisions on society at large. No need to be concerned about increased emissions from a big SUV, or how the over-use of gasoline affects the overall market pricing for said fluid.
go ahead, do whatever makes you happy.
05gt wrote:
I dont understand why people on this site crap all over a person’s want for an SUV
and then:
he said he wouldnt be caught dead driving a minivan (I personally dont blame him)
Well, I am sure glad there is no double-standard here. ;)
p00ch:“My only real beef with SUVs is the danger to other road users. Most of these trucks’ bumpers are at eye level with my son when he’s strapped into his car seat. Even a low-speed side impact would be disastrous (only to us, of course).
Now, if everyone decided that they need to sit high, we’d have an arms race on our hands. Soccer moms driving Kenworths? Not so unlikely, just look at the International lineup…”p00ch makes the only legitimate argument for ‘needing’ a large SUV, i.e, if I’m in an impact with one, I need to be in a vehicle just as large so my occupants don’t end up being badly injured.
Ironically, due to the impact-absorbing crumple zone limitations of a body-on-frame, truck-type vehicle, the occupants of a large SUV actually stand the same chance of injury as those of any smaller vehicle they impact with.
But for all those defending SUV’s and any gas guzzling sport cars. How will your children look at you when your old, when global warming has reeked it’s havoc and you drove around with your “I don’t give a damn about you”, polluter? Puh-lease. The only havoc "global warming" will wreak will be the increasingly socialistic tendencies from the unwashed masses as more spineless twits cave in to peer pressure from Judgey Von Holier-Than-Thous and declare that they want the government to "save them from themselves" And the government will be happy to oblige…by killing all freedom. All in the name of saving the Bolivian eye-licking tree frog. Hoo-frickin'-ray. Modern Americans shouldn’t have to care about the effects on their decisions on society at large. I don't… go ahead, do whatever makes you happy. …and I shall.
How much longer will Nissan sell the Armada, Titan and the Infiniti QX56? Sales have been terrible since 2005, because Nissan (actually Renault) has spent next to nothing on advertising, and sales have plummented as a result.
I’ve never owned or even driven an Armada, but I have owned two Titans, and IMO, it’s one of the best full sized pickups on the market…better than the underpowered Chevy/GMC (which copied several Titan features, evident on 2007 models), better than the Dodge, or the underpowered Ford with it’s crappy brakes. It was far better than the Tundra till the 2007 models were introduced.
The reliability issue were mainly caused by undersized brakes, which caused “brake judder.” Nissan fixed ’em all for free by 2006, and extended the warranty to 5/60 on the entire brake system.
Meanwhile my (former) crappy 2004 F150 Lariat had 5 sets of brake rotors replaced in 17,000 miles for the same brake judder issue.Ford never upgraded the warranty, the problem still exists on 2008 models.
CR has panned the Titan, Armada and QX56 using the same words inre to the crappy brakes 2004’s had, but has not tested one since. Personally, I feel CR is unfair to everyone, unless it says Honda on the grille.
To say that the Honda Ridgeline is the best truck on the market, is ridiculous.
Since it’s common knowledge that most SUVs don’t venture off-road, Nissan could differentiate themselves by offering a ‘lighweight SUV’. Keeping it tall and big but shedding some serious weight, they’d improve handling and fuel mileage. Simple things like a 2WD option, making 3rd row seats optional instead of standard, lighter materials, etc. With less weight, you could get away with a smaller engine and lose little or no performance. And for those who need to tow, a small displacement diesel engine would be sufficient for most situations. Hauling 5,600 lbs around daily is like carrying a fully-loaded suitcase everywhere you go, even though you only travel once or twice a year.
BKW- the Titan sales are hampered by the lack of a cheapie base regular cab version.
Pooch,
I think your ideas are exactly where the SUV design is inevitably going to go. People buy them strictly for superficial prestige reasons.
It shouldn’t take a genius to figure out how to keep the all-important commanding SUV appearance, yet eliminate any final vestiges of off-road ability to benefit economy and all-around on-road performance.
Eliminating the transfer case, skid plates, and the front driveline/differential would cause enormous weight reductions and create dramatic price improvements. Tires that appear to be aggressive off-road from the side could be smoothed and lightened considerably and then combined with strictly highway tread patterns.
p00ch- The Pathfinder does OK with towing. It’s better than all the crossovers.
Not sure smaller engines gain any fuel mileage at this capacity.
Lighter weight would help but the appeal of a quiet, luxurious truck far outweighs the 1/4 or 1/2 mpg you might gain.
I don’t think I’ll ever understand the difference in prestige between an Armada and a Sienna. Both haul 7-8 people, both offer AWD, both are reasonably reliable.
But one gets better mileage, performs better, has far superior cargo capacities, is more comfortable and costs $10K less.
If someone isn’t smart or tough enough to make the right choice here, then he probably deserves what he buys.
And if to secure the oil that SUV requires, his neighbor’s kid goes off to fight in Iraq and doesn’t return, well that’s somebody else’ problem.
The important thing is to not be caught dead in a minivan.
SherbornSean,
You make very good points about the immorality of our actions. Three of my cousins’ kids have gone off to fight in Iraq, so some of your arguments strike very close to home. All three of those kids believe that we are in Iraq for very good, even compelling reasons and so do I. Those kids are not willingly putting themselves in mortal danger for oil, btw.
This “image” that SUVs exude bothers me the most, because it’s obviously a naked fraud. Almost all SUVs sold today are completely incompetent at delivering the “goods” that their “images” promise. To argue for their practical aspects is an obvious diversionary tactic, a logical red herring. Logically the practical aspects of a SUV, ie their utilitarian capabilities other than off-road prowess, are more than fulfilled with an efficient minivan.
If people actually bought and used SUV’s for their off-road prowess, there would be no compelling argument against them. People who buy and enjoy SUVs do so precisely because the vast majority of them have no real off-road capability. They are designed and purchased for their performance on dry, paved roads.
That right there is the crime against humanity.
While I agree with the “I’ll drive whatever I want” crowd, road elephants (like the Armada) and their drivers (who are often human elephants) are a safety issue. Based on my anecdotal evidence, they are worse than sports cars. Their drivers are more prone to tailgate, weave, drive drunk.
Of course, it’d be interesting to see comparison data (IIHS / NHTSA ?) regarding vehicle-miles driven over accidents for both types. And break it down further to include injuries to other vehicles’ drivers.
It’s amazing to me that states haven’t tightened licensing requirement for vehicles over ~4500 lbs. Then again, allowing anyone to drive is related to allowing anyone to drive anything. I guess we’ll get soccer mom’s in Kenilworths someday…
And if to secure the oil that SUV requires, his neighbor’s kid goes off to fight in Iraq and doesn’t return, well that’s somebody else’ problem.
Jeez. I thought we were past that kind of alarmist conspiracy thinking and realized that religious extremism is a serious problem best fought “over there” rather than “over here”. What happens if we slink off now and “his neighbor’s kid” (to use your example) and hundreds or thousands of others die in the next 9/11 because the radicals are emboldened and those in charge would rather be popular than actual leaders? Talk about real crimes against humanity.
Larry P2- Is the off-road image really that important? Every one I’ve known who’s owned one of these type vehicles was a tower.
ihatetrees- the biggest road offenders near me are the “modding” import tuner crowd. They’re much more dangerous than any SUV driver.
“Is the off-road image really that important? Every one I’ve known who’s owned one of these type vehicles was a tower.”
Then you don’t need 4 wheel drive to be a tower, particularly if you stay on paved roads like most people do. For many years, I towed all manner of trailers with a Chevrolet two wheel drive pickup, including massive 5th wheel trailers. And I pulled those trailers over hairy-assed stuff most people would call “off-road” (which it wasn’t).
Never a problem.
It simply is the superfluous four wheel drive system and off-road jewelry on SUVs that exact the biggest and most clearly unecessary penalty on fuel mileage and on-road performance. Considering that most people don’t need or even use that whole system anyway, it would seem to be a rather painless and immediate solution to our current energy crisis. I would bet that omission of the four wheel drive system would lead to an easy 5 or 6 mpg improvement on average. That would be pretty significant. That is clearly where the evolution of the SUV is going anyway …. less and less off-road capability.
And you still wouldn’t be caught dead in a minivan!
I love the styling cues on this thing’s profile. It’s like the designers couldn’t decide whether they wanted to make it boxy or round. “Let’s give it some curves…NO WAIT MAKE IT SQUARE…oh, hell, just give it a giant nameplate and we’ll work it out in the morning.”
I wonder at what point the social pressure to get more than than 15 mpg out of an errand-mobile (and if you get high-centered on ANYTHING in this beast, guess what, it’s an errand-mobile) will outweigh the “cool” factor of driving a vehicle the size of an apartment building. ¬_¬
As an American you do have the right to choose what you would like to drive, and carmakers are more than happy to fill the need. However, all choices come with a direct economic cost and an indirect social cost. There lies the problem. Some choices automatically up your contribution to the social cost. Own a sports car? Smoke? Make any homeowner’s claims? If so, you more likely than not pay more for your insurance premiums. Enough to cover your added burden? Maybe not the smoking costs, but for the cars, yes (and then some). Insurance is based on calculated loss. But when you choose a guzzler, you pay none of the added burdens to society. Your really don’t think a gallon of gas covers the cost of security/military needs that are expended every year by the US government in the middle east, do you? Or the senseless loss of lives in Iraq? In fact, if middle and upper class Americans were the ones dying in Iraq there would be a much greater call for withdrawal. Burning fuel also impacts the environment, national security, and leaves less for the future. Simply put, these indirect costs could be minimized by using less fuel or by charging those who purchase guzzlers (a right that should be yours) a registration penalty. If you made the “penalty cut-off” 17 MPG, you would find the carmakers scrambling to get their SUV to make that threshold. What you would lose is some bulk, towing capacity, and off-road ability – The Armada could stand to lose some bulk, and it seems it does not have any off road capability anyway.
There are several posts about what kind of vehicles tend to be involved in more “driving problems”. In my experience, the main culprit has been the vehicle with the driver who is on the phone an not paying any attention to what is going on around them. Generally (once again, in my experience), this has usually been women in minivans and small SUVs.
I had it happen to me twice yesterday.
Larry P2: Actually, getting rid of the extra 4wd hardware doesn’t provide much of a mileage advantage. The Armada is available in a 2wd version, which weighs 300 pounds less – and is rated 12/18 instead of 12/17. The poor mileage is primarily caused by the overall weight and poor aerodynamics…and while getting rid of the transfer case and such might reduce the weight slightly, it doesn’t really help the overall problem.
You’ll see this with most larger SUVs and trucks – at best the 2wd versions get 1-2mpg better than the 4×4 versions.
Eliminating the 4WD hardware not only saves a few hundred pounds, it saves quite a bit of parasitic drag. Even with free wheeling hubs, there is still drag from the added mechanicals. Percentage wise, 2 mpg is a pretty good increase in mileage when you are going from 17 to 19.
That we have vehicles that are rated at 12 MPG is pretty disgraceful. Today’s fleet average is back to the level America achieved in 1981. That is a sad testimony to the state of affairs today.
My 2 cents …
For the money the Armada is a pretty good vehicle. We have 3 small kids and going the large SUV route was the only way to conveniently place 3 car seats in the 2nd row. For now the 3rd row isn’t used but will be when the kids get older AND can buckle themselves. The 3rd row is a pain to use if the parent has to go back there to buckle up a kid.
We also have a fully loaded Sienna, great car but not enough towing capacity. Towing anything near the limit + passengers + gear will surely ruin the transmission. Even though tent trailers are lightweight the more useful and comfortable ones are near enough to the Sienna’s 3500lbs tow limit. Our Sienna has 2nd row captain’s chairs, we cannot put 3 car seats across. The Armada rules and can tow just about anything I want + kids + stuff.
We looked at a Honda Pilot. Better towing capacity but to the best of my knowledge no factory option to replace the donut spare with a full size spare. The last thing you want to have happen on a family vacation towing a tent trailer is to have a flat and only have a donut for a spare. The Armada has a full size spare. My Sienna carries a full size tire and wheel behind the 3rd row seat.
We also looked at the new Sequoia. Its mostly similar to the Armada but we couldn’t touch one with Platinum trim for less than $55K. Our loaded Armada LE cost less than $40K.
We ruled the Chevy Tahoe off the list because of the ancient 4speed transmission. This tranny has been around almost forever and GM won’t put in something more modern or dependable. Replacing a GM tranny should not be part of your maintainence schedule. I would’ve bought a Tahoe if I could get an Allison tranny. Not having fold flat 3rd row seats doesn’t help either as well as the really ancient problem prone 10-bolt rear end.
We ruled the Ford Expedition out because on the redesign they moved the peak torque UP a 1000 rpms, exactly where you don’t want it to be when you’re an SUV.
The new Saturn/GMC/Buick crossovers all have donuts for spares and again not enough towing capacity. Manufacturer’s tow ratings aside, you have to wonder how much power you really have when these things weigh 5000lbs and only have 250 ft-lbs of torque.
The Mercedes GL-class simply cost too much. It too has a donut for a spare. The smaller ML-class doesn’t have a 3rd row and isn’t big enough to hold all our stuff. Placing 3 car seats in the 2nd row is a really really tight fit and almost impossible to buckle in. We know because we had one.