Perhaps you haven’t lived in a flyover state where brown leather gear dominates your town during Rodeo season. While the Ford+King Ranch press release celebrating the 15th Anniversary of those famous brown leather pickups reached the autoblogosphere, only a local writer with an internationally known knack for automotive snark both finds the sweet mochalicious lede and refuses to bury it in the dirt.
And what does that mean? You gotta click to find out.
I’ve been blacklisted (brownlisted?) from Ford PR events as long as I remember, but I attended this shindig via the King Ranch side of the Ford+King Ranch love fest. So I donned my cheap cowhide boots, my thrift store boot cut jeans and herded the Duratec Ranger’s 150-ish horses to the Rodeo…pardner.
As the massive complex–housing the once amazing Astrodome—filled up, I noticed how this Rodeo’s grown in the last 10-20 years. Ford’s booth hawked their latest wares much like any auto show, complete with a “media only” area for us bloggers, social media influencers and local autojournos. There was the new aluminum F-150, the new-ish Expedition and the current Super Duty…all in King Ranch guise, ‘natch.
And yes, the King Ranch is actually a famous Ranch, much like Bill Blass was a name on Lincolns attached to an actual person. They sold cowboy grade stuff nearby at their Saddle Shop at the Rodeo, too. But I digress…
So what does a native Houstonian think of the aluminum cage’d F150? Pretty cool inside and out, as their design/engineering embodies continuous improvement, even if the rig is far too big for its own good. The doors close with less vault-like heft of the last-gen steel body, but it still feels great. And even the door card is all kinds of broughamy from the days of Ford LTDs with covered headlights and Ghia-clad Granadas.
Now, even more than before, Ford’s take on the American Workhorse is the unquestioned Audi of Pickups.
The new Expedition is a modest evolution, lacking the “WTF” face of the Tahoe’s buzz saw headlights. Its refined snout is a pleasurable throwback to the beard trimming grille of the UR-Fusion.
The hallmark all-wheel independent suspension and the massive fold flat 3rd row seat still bowl me over: shame on GM for not following suit. But the interior feels distinctly cheap compared to the F-150. But every Ford product takes an R&D back seat to the almighty F-series, right? #pantherlove
The Super Duty (ever present on the Rodeo’s dirt floor) has a new oil-burnin’ motor for 2015, but the stuff you can touch looks about the same. The new-ish center stack loaded with SYNC looks functional enough, but again, the interior lacks the refinement of the F150. Ditto the exterior. But the King Ranch trimming in all three models drove home the fact that this is the brownest lineup in the car biz. Or at least the truck biz…and it’s been that way for 15 years now?
And, as a founding member of the Brown Car Appreciation Society on Facebook, a tail-wags-the-dog group that made brown as “important” as diesels and manual transmissions to auto journos and to the PR flacks that do anything to get their attention, it’s nice to believe our mission adds to the King Ranch’s reach. Because brown makes the King Ranch a cut above, even if the leather isn’t as buttery soft as before: hopefully the lack of tenderness means it’ll hold up better than older models.
Ford also had a brief presentation, after most guests Frank Bacon-ized themselves with free food/booze in the luxury suite. Succumbing to the urge I felt in 2011 when buying my Ranger, I asked the Ford F-series rep why Dearborn talked me out of an F-150 by making it impossible to configure what I wanted: a regular cab, XLT, short bed, 4×4, limited slip differential with the 6.2L Hurricane-Boss V8. You know, a Ford Tremor without the poseur trim, the tacky console and a half-ton of big block V8 instead of that funny soundin’ EcoBoost motor.
The rep went into some detail about the cost-benefit of offering everything under the sun (a fair point for any corporation, to some extent) and then threw me a bone:
“You definitely know what you want, maybe we can accommodate you in the future.”
So if the BOSS V8 ever shows up in some twisted FoMoCo homage to the GMC Syclone…well…YOU ARE WELCOME, SON. For now, enjoy these chocolatey photos showing a time when Ford, King Ranch and a lot of brown joined forces to impress rodeo-going pistonheads.
But I thought America wanted smaller trucks? And the expedition isn’t a “throwback” model. That implies new made to look old. It is simply old. I do like it though and it would likely be my choice were I shopping in that segment.
SOME Americans want smaller trucks. More than the rest want to believe.
Yes but the multimillion dollar question is how many want smaller vs. how many want large?
@Vulpine – Those that ‘want’ and those that actually step up to plate and buy ‘new’ are 2 totally different numbers.
I complain all the time about not having more better choices in affordable compact roadsters that I love, but that does’t mean I’m willing to buy a new one. Lots of people love compact roadsters, but we’re limited to just a couple choices because when it comes time to buying new, most enthusiast’s hands suddenly can’t reach their wallets. It’s called T-Rex Syndrome. Same thing with small trucks.
i cant be the only one who thinks that the expedition looks like an early 2000’s fomoco product am i?
That’s because it IS.
> because when it comes time to buying new, most enthusiast’s hands suddenly can’t reach their wallets. It’s called T-Rex Syndrome.
Nice.
We will see, Mike. We will see.
I got two points out of this:
* The F-150 is just too darn huge;
* Ford may be looking at going back to the A la Carté method of building vehicles to taste.
Kudos for someone else recognizing the former.
Kudos to Ford if they follow up on that tease.
Size is personal opinion, when my H2 was new one of the many criticisms, most unfair, was the size, I can tell you right now in 2014, 11-12 years after its debut, I am dwarfed in it by a lot of different vehicles, fortunately I don’t care About size I can still maneuver it just as easily as ever.
Cars keep getting smaller while trucks get bigger, tells me cars are no longer aimed at truck buyers.
Also I have doubts ford will allow special ordering for what people want. There was a(one) scout, IH made with ~5:72 rear axle ratio, just that one, special order. AM General made a(one) H1 with the color “international harvester red” for a special order, I can’t see ford doing actual special ordering.
Not to forget Fords about to screw everything up and drop the 6.2 because they seem to not be able to compete with GMs 6.2.
.
Edit: “fortunately I don’t care About size I can still maneuver it just as easily as ever.”
Haha to myself.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the H2 is dwarfed by the ride heights and widths of the current “1500” sized offerings from the Big Three. It’s just getting silly, but I am biased/spoiled by the easy access bed of the Ranger.
All 3/4 trucks made in the last 5 years I have to look up into, the new Rams 1500 I believe are higher, I forget about fords, haven’t been around enough 14 GMs to know.
We’re talking up, height, as far as length most vehicles are longer.
It’s pretty wierd I have larger tires no side steps and it looks size able, until anything new pulls beside it. All I have then is the roof width.
The criticism of the H2 was not that it was large, but rather that it was so small inside for how large it is on the outside.
Also the Valdeez thing.
I personally never found the inside small, the engine is pushed back into the firewall, the frame is higher than most other vehicles and then on top of that all components were pushed above frame level.
Thus I found the interior fairly roomy, better than the H1 anyhow. To criticize a vehicle for not being comparable to another vehicle with different designed uses reflects on journalism not the vehicle. Is the corvette good at hauling mulch?
If idiots want to somehow connect an ocean accident to a small production niche vehicle, there’s really no reason to even give them the time of day.
> The criticism of the H2 was not that it was large, but rather that it was so small inside for how large it is on the outside.
No, the aggregate criticism of Hummer in general was its mission to take machismo to its logical conclusion. The thing looks like an adolescent’s wet dream and might as well be compensating for the pubescent package size…
“No, the aggregate criticism of Hummer in general was its mission to take machismo to its logical conclusion. The thing looks like an adolescent’s wet dream and might as well be compensating for the pubescent package size…”
Maybe so, I don’t go around comparing, she’s happy, I’m happy.
More over its criticisms were just bundled by a large following of code pink sheeple and the like seeing a slight military appearance, thus is was “bad”, regardless if it actually was the first of many new design processes common industry wide today. Gas mileage argument was garbage, it got the same or better than every 3/4 gas (3/4 was the chassis basis) and similar to several 1/2 vehicles.
> More over its criticisms were just bundled by a large following of code pink sheeple and the like seeing a slight military appearance, thus is was “bad”,
I suppose it’s unfair to target one specific case of people buying based on looks when that’s common practice.
Regardless, it’s pretty disingenuous to argue about engineering when we all know why they ended up in suburban driveways.
And I’m betting my 4-door Jeep Wrangler can out-maneuver your H2, too.
Maybe, are we talking stock or what ya got?
My DD H2 isn’t very modded. I’m on cooper STT 37×12.5×17, no lift, upgraded parts underneath but it depends the terrain we’re talkin.
Stock. I’m on 32″ tires so you may do better with muddin’ and rock crawling, but I’ll bet I have a tighter turning radius and overall narrower body than you for squeezing between obstacles (and parking in the typical shopping center).
Turning circle
JKU 41.2
H2 43.5 (stock tire 35in BFG a/T)
Slightly better, I mostly like trailing, and have the scars to prove it, but its all fun.
Got a couple scars myself, but the biggest one is on the wheel itself when I slipped off a rock.
Gotta say that when I first took mine out on the trail, a lot of ‘old timers’ declared the JKU wouldn’t be able to do what their lifted and modded models could–and were quite surprised when I went through a lot of their playgrounds with less problem than they had. Granted I’m only limited slip with no lockers, but the JKU proved itself to a lot of people that day.
“Ford may be looking at going back to the A la Carté method of building vehicles to taste.” — Vulpine
I’d really want to see the cost benefit analysis of this. Because I sure would love to configure any vehicle like I did with the Ranger, but I do understand the pitfalls of this at the corporate/dealer level.
Aye, which is why they went to “option packages” rather than A la Carté. On the other hand, with modern JIT sourcing and computer-controlled assembly lines, AND the fact that Ford now has 11 different trim packages running on one assembly line, A la Carté is probably a lot more practical now than it was.
Great article and pictures, but let me counter at least one thing, ford dropping the solid rear in the expedition was easily what made it drop so far behind the GM SUVs, additionally if your looking for an independent rear with fold in rear seats, Chrysler offers a minivan for you.
Hate to go off topic, BUT you did go to a TRUCK event not a CUV event.
Possibly, but I see way too many concrete cowboys driving all manner of SUVs to fully believe that. And the GM’s are too jiggly compared to the Ford. (Houston roads are pretty bad, BTW)
I would say the Expedition/Navi is the poor man’s Land Rover, but even I don’t really believe that.
GM had to upgrade their IFS in their HDs to compete with the SFA on competitors trucks.
The single advantage usually given to IFS is ride, which was the single thing lost in the upgrade, prevailing opinions state that competitors SFA now rides better than GMs IFS.
So I’ve heard anyway.
Likewise I have never found Fords IRS more comfortable than GMs SRA, its always been harder and more jumpy I believe. It partially depends on setup GM had two availible setups for the rears in GMT800 after that I lost interest in them so I don’t know which they settled for, probably SOA.
2015 GM fullsizes also now have flip up 3rd row seats like Ford, of course you do lose load floor height.
Why do you think the IRS was a liability for the Expedition? I can tell you that my 2006 Navigator rides better and had more 3rd row space than any Suburbalade I’ve driven/ridden in, and the new quasi fold flat 3rd row in the 2015 GMers is a joke. If they went IRS, I might have actually had a reason to switch camps.
Fords IRS is a liability, more tire wear, more parts to wear, worse ride in my opinion, inheritally weaker design. Not as easy to deal with or change other components, engine power, tire size, and other situations that require a rigid situation.
GM would lose the fullsize market without a solid rear, it makes sense.
Cheaper
Stronger
Durable
Able to take abuse
Ride
Ability
Honestly IRS only advantage is folding rear seats, pretty sad reason to make a good product inferior.
Can’t agree with you about the ride. After lots of rides in Slade and Navigator airport shuttles I can say the Navi is unequivocally more comfortable. Slade still has solid-axle jiggles and head toss. Navi feels almost like a car, with just some structural shake to betray its BOF roots.
And the packaging of the GM vehicles is absolutely terrible for vehicles that are marketed as people- and stuff-haulers.
Both have excellent reliability records so I think your concerns about durability and strength are a red herring except for the few owners who actually go off-road with these things.
The only thing on your list that makes sense is “cheaper.” The ride sucks, the 3rd row legroom is terrible, and there have been few if any durability issues reported with the superior Ford/Toyota/Nissan truck based SUV’s with IRS. My Navigator tows great, and gets 40k+ miles out of both front and rear tires. I’ve added a blower and full exhaust, and the rear end has held up to several years of pushing 500 HP to the tires with zero modifications from stock. It hooks and goes from a standstill better than most RWD performance cars, and glides over bumps like a luxury vehicle.
Spend 30 minutes in the 3rd row of a Suburban on Houston streets, and I guarantee your opinion will change.
Your view of an SUV is the reason why CUVs exist, bare minimum mechanically for SUV profits.
Why criticise a setup that is proven and sells, when you have a market that produces jacked up cars. SUVs sold very well when they mirrored a truck with a enclosed rear, over time they have turned into CUV competitors, and of course what has happened? Sales have dropped.
I’m not talking out of my rear, case in point the GMT 800 sold much better than the GMT900
If you find a CUV that can pull my trailered ZR-1 through the hills as effortlessly as my Navigator, then your point is valid. The Ford IRS solution offers truck utility and CUV refinement that is superior to the GM cheapo SRA. Period. They spent the money on the Corvette derived V8s, but skimped on the rear suspension, even after over a decade of Ford/Toyota/Nissan SUV’s with superior ride and handling. There is really no debate on this subject.
And yes, the GMT 800 sold better than the 900, partially because there was no better competition in 1999. But by the time the 900 came out in ’06, it was hopelessly outdated, in no small part due to the antiquated SRA. Post Katrina gas prices didn’t help either.
Blaming CUV like features for decreased sales is ludicrous. I don’t see any causality there whatsoever.
“If you find a CUV that can pull my trailered ZR-1 through the hills as effortlessly as my Navigator, then your point is valid.”
I’m sure the Grand Cherokee with the 5.7 or the 3.0 diesel could not only pull as well but pull better. The Grand Cherokee is without a doubt a CUV and therefore fits your criteria.
GM’s SUV’s outsell all the competition combined, you keep ignoring this fact, even with overpriced car like SUV’s, GM singlehandedly owns the fullsize market.
The money spent on the vette engine has nothing to do with money spent on the fullsizes, the vette engine doesn’t even directly swap. GM didn’t skimp on rear suspensions is has given consumers what the consumers have asked for, and while sales have decreased they still destroy the shoddy IRS the competition produces. GMT 800 sold well its entire life, not just in 99. to say that competition didn’t exist is ridiculous every major automaker had a competing product by early 2000. To say that consumers actually wanted IRS en masse on fullsize SUV’s goes against what sales numbers have shown. Truck sales have picked up considerably even with gas prices, it has become the new norm for most. To say that the desire for fullsize SUVs doesn’t exist simply because no automaker offers a traditional fullsize any longer is ridiculous at best. All traditional fullsizes morphed into products that no longer resemble what they used to be. unfortunately GM’s current attempt at the fullsize market is the best available offering, everything else is crap, and sells thusly.
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2014/01/usa-large-suv-sales-figures-december-2013-year-end-results.html
Ford expedition with both Regular version and XL versions combined, old design
GM has 4 vehicles on the list that at the time (DEC ’13) were on the eve of the new SUV debut.
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2014/01/usa-large-luxury-suv-sales-figures-december-2013-year-end.html
Here is luxury SUV’s The escalade (combined all versions) outsell all other Luxury competitors, the Navigator (combined) sold less than half.
In other words…
GM IS DOING SOMETHING RIGHT, Ford… not so much.
CUV’s are car based chassis, Hummer. Think Highlander, 2012+ Explorer, Acadia/Encore, etc. The GC is not car based.
Whether GM sells best or not has little to do with its rear suspension. Do you think the best selling vehicles in every category are necessarily the best engineered? Hardly.
As to your Vette comment, you are showing your ignorance. Of course the motors don’t directly swap. If you can’t see that GM shares development costs across multiple platforms, then you need to look closer. The LT1 C7 motor and its Gen V truck iterations all share the same architecture, and have superficial differences in heads/cams/displacement to tailor the motor to unique application. Do you think they were designed independently of each other? GM does some stupid things, but their V8s are world class, and a great example of what they do right.
There is no ignorance showing, the design for the V8’s can be more closely related to the trucks, the engine in the Silverado makes direct swap to the Tahoe, suburban, Yukon Yukon XL. Sure the vette engine can be made to work on any similar generation small Block GM vehicle with minimal work, but it’s a bad comparison.
Why say GM spent rear end money on the vette and not the Silverado. Unlike Ford GM doesn’t get 90% of it’s profits from pickups and then turn around and lose billions in the European market. Not to say GM finances make a darn bit of sense, but to state the corvette engine development is directly responsible for the rear end design in the K2XX platform SUV’s just doesn’t work.
Likewise the GC is absolutely a CUV, it lacks a ladder frame which really doesn’t give it any guess work to what it can be considered. Lets not get into the little stuff. Just because it fits your criteria doesn’t mean you can backwalk it.
GM has produced the Suburban for what 80 years? The Tahoe for almost 20 years, if the design was so bad, consumers have long since moved on to their next vehicle and prevailing wisdom would mean if they stayed in the same class they would move to a competitors product. You can make the case a new product outselling other offerings could be a fluke that didn’t follow actual consumer demands/wants. However both of these designs were outdated in DEC ’13, the consumers buying them weren’t buying them with the desire to simply be the first on the block with a shiny new version, they were bought based off of merits in comparison to one another.
> Here is luxury SUV’s The escalade (combined all versions) outsell all other Luxury competitors
Pretty sure rappers and wannabes aren’t buying Escalades for the engineering and spinners to complement the solid axle.
Price was also a big factor on why the GMT800 sold better than the GMT900. In 2000 the base Tahoe LS 4×2 was $24,929 (~$34,000 adjusted for inflation). By 2010 that had jumped to $37,280 (~$40,000 adjusted for inflation) and today a new Tahoe starts at almost $45000.
Hummer, it is not about IRSs or SRAs, I bet 90% of the people who buy these things don’t know or care about stuff like that. Yes, sales of truck like SUVs have dropped…because there are tons of CUVs on the market that consumers have shifted to.
I said:”They spent the money on the Corvette derived V8s, but skimped on the rear suspension, even after over a decade of Ford/Toyota/Nissan SUV’s with superior ride and handling.
From which you gather:
“Why say GM spent rear end money on the vette and not the Silverado.”
LOL, I suggest working on your reading comprehension.
Until then, I’m not going to waste my time explaining to you how your “direct swap” comment shows ignorance of the basic premise that the Gen V V8 architecture was designed by GM Powertain, whether they reside under the hood of a Suburban, Denali, or C7.
Sheesh, I obviously miswrote rear end instead of engine, are you really unable to spot that?
I have a pretty good grasp of the differences, I know they’re highly similar, but the vette uses a different head design, cam, oiling system intake, and stronger components for 7k RPM.
Because I obviously miswrote something is no good reason to use it as basis for anything, makes me question your intelligence tbh.
“I obviously miswrote rear end instead of engine, are you really unable to spot that?”
So you meant to say:
“Why say GM spent ENGINE money on the vette and not the Silverado.”
yeah, that makes a LOT more sense.
The GMT-900 was hopelessly outdated? Compared to what? Sorry but the GMT-900 is heads and tails better over the 800’s they replaced. Sales are lower only because the 800’s were produced during the SUV craze. You may remember the 900’s were launched right as the economy went to hell. And the FS BOF SUV market never did or will recover to those sales levels enjoyed before the crash. Still GM owns the BOF fullsize SUV market. No one else even comes close. The reality is the solid rear axle rides and handles better than the IFS in the Fords or Toyotas. I’ll give you the better 3rd row, but for towing the I’ll take the solid rear axle in the GM SUVs over an IRs.
“The reality is the solid rear axle rides and handles better than the IFS in the Fords or Toyotas”
If you’re talking about IRS, you’re way off base. At least Hummer was pitching the durability of the live axle, as it does have less moving parts. But if solid axles rode and handled better, why would we even have IRS?
Now if you are talking IFS, I don’t know what to say. ;-)
Wow your bragging that your Ford gets 40K plus out of a set of tires? My ’07 Tahoe went 70K easy on the factory rubber. I’ll get 80K out of the rubber I got on it now. And the ride sucks? That’s a bullshit statement if I ever heard one. They ride and handle great for fullsize BOF 1/2 ton truck.
I don’t think their outdated beliefs will allow them to try out a modern SRA, for fear of finding GM actually did something right.
Carlson, I guarantee you and I aren’t talking about the same treadwear tires, and we probably don’t have the same driving style. When my Navigator was stock, on stock rubber, the OE tires did last about 60k miles, but after I added power (the one area where the GMs are far ahead of the Ford full size SUVs), the stock rubber was too hard and speed limited. Does your Tahoe have 500 hp?
I haven’t driven the new 2015s yet, but my 2006 old school Navi with air suspension rides far better than any Suburban/Tahoe/Escalade, especially those on 20+” wheels. I’ve driven/ridden in plenty of them. The jiggly SRA can’t match the IRS for ride comfort. Period.
A solid axle is wasted on anything that doesn’t see the rocks and then if it doesn’t have a matching one under the front it is still wasted.
So all the duallies and tractor trailers just need to switch to independent rears?
Different type of vehicle stud.
“stud.” LOL
Hmmm.
Never been to Houston. But I imagine that if you’d step out into any street without looking, there’s about a 3 out of 4 chance that’d you’d get clipped by an F-Series “pick up”.
My energy-industry uncle lives there. He touts his spankin’ new F-250 diesel as the be all and end all.
Much like getting blinded by the HID’s on a Volvo or BMW in Yuppie-Town, U.S.A.
It’s all geographical, kids.
Step out in the wrong part of town and it’ll be a Land Rover/X5 instead.
Well I’ll be damned.
I didn’t think Land Rover drivers wore Stetson Hats.
That’s true, but if you really step out in the wrong part of town it will be a S.L.A.B or a donk that clips you :)
Zing!
Actually in Houston proper I don’t see that many trucks. Now move out to the suburbs and rural areas like where I live, pickups and SUVs out number cars.
You’re damn right about the F150s. And they still skitter over bumps with their live axles like a $90,000 2015 Escalade. However, I don’t think Escalades need the same levels of payload capacity. The IRS is a superior solution for an SUV where max payload isn’t the goal. Comfort, room, and the ability to still tow 8000+ lbs is easily achievable with IRS, and Ford has proven this ever since MY 2003.
Now your talking out your rear, maybe ford doesnt know how to control a live axle but the new trucks rear end setup make the expedition feel like a horse and buggy as far as road comfort.
Really?
Which “New trucks” are you referring to?
“maybe ford doesn’t know how to control a live axle”
Uh, 50 years of Mustang?
VoGo, don’t blaspheme against the mighty Hummer wisdom. Ford ain’t got $#&^ when it comes to battling the almighty, all conquering GM live rear axle.
I was joking, toward doctors outdated beliefs.
Doctor I’m pretty sure ford also uses AAM, which GM uses, don’t twist this into the manufacturer of w/e axle.
Outdated? This, from the guy that thinks the IRS in the Expedition/Navigator isn’t durable, and fails to acknowledge its commonly recognized benefits?
The F150’s skitter because they use leaf springs. The GM SUV’s have a completely different set-up. When I hook 4 tons of boat to the back of my Tahoe the rear wheels aren’t laying on their sides from the tongue weight, wearing the tires funny. No wonder your Ford eats through tires.
Truly, this is the answer to the question, “Where can I buy a new 1979 Town Car landau?”
Some prior owners of the 1980 New Yorker Brougham will also be pleased.
Now I want a Dodge Ram (sorry Fiatsler, I’m not just gonna call it Ram) with a waterfall grille a la 74-78 Imperial/New Yorker Brougham.
These comments are like an alternate-universe version of the old Camaro/Mustang fanboi debates, only with the roles reversed. Rest assured that just as Ford did with the Mustang, GM will eventually cave and offer IRS on their large SUVs. They are luxury passenger vehicles, after all, not work trucks, no matter what the commercials depict.
All that matters in muscle cars as far as rear end is what’s reliable, Ford Fanbois seeing how badly Ford did with their previous attempt at IRS in the mustang were/are rightfully skeptical.
GM on the other hand owns 75% of the market, unless they have plans to give it away they won’t stray from SRA. Unlike the Muscle cars a legitimate fact based case cannot be made for IRS on fullsize SUV’s, It’s 100% compromise, and now that GM offers fold in rear seats, 0% gain. If the competition has any desire to own larger piece of the pie they have to put a SRA on their offering.
3 totally separate manufacturers of Large SUV’s are destroyed by 1 manufacturer with 4 different iterations of the same vehicle. How can anyone even make the IRS case with a straight face?
“3 totally separate manufacturers of Large SUV’s are destroyed by 1 manufacturer with 4 different iterations of the same vehicle. How can anyone even make the IRS case with a straight face?”
As whynot correctly pointed out above, 90% of buyers (I’d say 95%+)think the IRS is gonna audit them come April 15. Clearly GM realized that their sales success doesn’t require the cost and expense of a proper IRS in their full sized SUV’s, so why waste money on it?
GM is in business to make money. Sales success has nothing to do with having IRS or not. The fact that IRS equipped SUV’s offer clear advantages aren’t gonna sway GM loyalists.
Point is, that doesn’t make IRS inferior. It just doesn’t fit their business model.
I’ll get back to you in a few hours, until then…
If IRS has so many advantages why not offer them in the pickups?
same reason you don’t see them in tractor trailers, stud. Payload.
Strange, I can get 1800lb payload on 1/2 ton suburb. But only 800 on some Rams…
And the crappy IRS equipped Navigator has a 1600 lb payload.
Hummer, are you saying that sales are the most important arbiter of which suspension design is best for SUVs?
OK, so why don’t we all march on down to a Hummer dealer and see for ourselves how impressive GM’s axles are on the new Hummers they are selling like hotcakes.
hahaha
So are you saying manufacturers should just start using beams for the front end on 2wd trucks?
No, manufacturers should use the best setup for the type of vehicle. Can IRS be made to be strog and durable?
Well the 06 H1 was fully independent an had over 3k in payload with the ability to tow 16k, however we all know no manufacturer is going to produce a IRS setup that’s actually superior to the strength durability, ride, and most of all the simplicity of a solid rear end.
Do you honestly think its a fluke that GM owns the segment? Do you not believe simplicity sells, if you need an example look at fullsize trucks, you could spend that money on a BMW, fortunately only so many people buy those. Simplicity sells, and it tends to be superior, such is the case here.
GM owns this segment because of history, not because of simplicity. They for decades were generally the only to only decent player in this market in the US, and built up tons of brand recognition with the Suburban because of that. Other players tried to enter (i.e. Ford with the Expedition/Excursion) when SUVs became hot but shifted away to large CUVs as consumers focused on those.
Because there is no major competition, GM can afford not to spend money on these vehicles for sophisticated IRS and the like, especially since the full size truck market has shrunk dramatically from its peak.
Is that an Aerostar as your avatar?
Tee-hee…
http://img1.etsystatic.com/005/0/6748279/il_340x270.371534633_i0t4.jpg
It’s the American Renault Espace!
LMFAO!
Yes it is. I learned to drive on, and later owned, a minivan with RWD and a stick. Everyone should be so lucky.
That’s awesome. 5-speed Aerostars are way awesome.
So how do I get Ford to sell me something with this grade of interior that’ll actually fit in my garage?
I wonder what will happen with the Raptor…
“The doors close with less vault-like heft of the last-gen steel body, but it still feels great.”
Still feels great? I’ve closed the doors on a few 2013 models at the dealership, and while the doors themselves seemed solid enough the whole cab experienced disturbing tremors with each closure, regardless of trim level.