You can try it again at the next (first?) "Trailblazer, Envoy, Bravada, Ranier, Ascender, 9-7x Reunion"! Boy, that's a mouthful.

 

Sorry to hear that. I've had no such problems with my 2002 Tahoe LS. After 52,000 miles the only interior blemish I have is a spot where the fabric has worn thin on the driver's seat. THAT'S IT!

Everything else (other than being a little dirty) looks as it did the day I bought it... and that includes several long distance trips hauling one kid's belongings back and forth between northern California and his college dorm in southern California, as well as several long distance trips hauling around the high school basketball team. I've actually had nine passengers in there several times and these kids weren't small.

Its the Tahoe's durability and versitility that makes me love it so much.

 

I'll give you that the V10's do dip into single-digits when pulling loads, typically 10-12 empty. (and I think that sux too BTW)

BUT - the diesel versions of this behemoth achieve 20 mpg with 3.55 gears routinely, 18 pulling. 4.10 gears see 18 empty, 16 pulling. NOT TOO SHABBY.

And yes, it's supposed to die after next year when the "lengthened" Expedition comes out as a "SuperDuty 1/2-ton". But we were talking TODAY'S vehicles, so it's still fair play!

 

I guess you could say it isn't really dieing, Gen II is just going to be on the F-150 chassis and not the F-250. Is the name staying the same or are they changing it to Expedition XL or something?

 

Dear Roger,

Thank you for your kind offer to be given a tour of Janesville.

I work for a supplier who provides parts to your plant, and would appreciate the opportunity to see your fine establishment without being subjected to the normal, standard, by-the-book a$$-raping I get when I show up there any other time I've been invited.

Please let me come in at some time when your Supplier Quality folks are not around, or they'll think I'm there because one of their co-workers called me in and then tie me up and violate me anally yet again.

Thanks,

PacerX



PS - Just kidding! Keep up the great work!

 

yea but thats the thing.. Yes it all works, and it probbaly will be just fine for miles to come. As its durable, but you could think they could make it a little more pretty. They are little details.. but hey, thats where the devil's at.. and thats what most other peopel complain about. The overal build quality of the interiors of these SUV's could be better... no, better yet, they HAVE to be better with the GMT900 rolling in.

Its like a switch,thats feels "sloppy" (mushy, excessive movement) from day 1.. but it'll continue to work exactly how its suppose to, for a billion cycles over 25 years. But in the end, it still feels like sloppy switch. (but you can't complain that it ever failed you)

BTW I asked my dealer to look at it, but they simply said, well, the interior panels is made of plastic, so thats normal... Then again, I hated that dealer(CARR Chev) and stopped going there.. Perhaps I'll mention it to the other dealer I goto now and see what they say.

I can live with it.. But if I didn't like the Av's and Chevy's so much overall.. I may have gotten something else.

 

You know you're in trouble when FORD is beating you in quality.

Sorry guys...IRS on a truck? What could anyone be thinking? Live axles are much better for the typical truck stuff...offroading, towing, etc. I like them on cars, but on a truck? Ridiculous!

Give me a live-axle Tahoe or Chevy 1500 any day over an IRS Expedition or Armada.

 

The PowerStroke has always been the best powertrain choice in an SuperDuty or Excusion. The $4,500 cost of the diesel option is a big turn off.

In a way, it's sad to see the Excursion go. It's a pity that Ford didn't trim 12-18 inches from the length of the Excursion. It's also a pity that the Excursion didn't offer better gasoline engine choices.

The sadest part is that Ford's retreat will leave GM with a monopoly on the 3/4 ton SUV market - again!

 

...and...and... Armada's have ridiculously poor quality ratings!

 

That's too short to quote a part of, so redzed will ignore it entirely and tangent off on more crap about Excursion. The Armada is the second coming of Christ in most threads, but now that there's evidence showing it's crap, redzed all of the sudden doesn't have much to say. Shocking.

 

I've already disproved Darth's ramblings.

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=368046

The Nissan Armada was judged to be the best Large SUV in Strategic Vision's 2005 Total Quality Study.

 

And JD Power judged it to be a POS, at least initially. Perhaps it's an indication that none of these surveys are worth a damn(?)

 

Ya, According to JD Power, the most recognized vehicle survey company... the Armada is a big turd. You gotta be a complete moron to buy or lease one of those things. You'd think you'd do some research or something first...

 

Roger-

Thanks for putting a great product on the road. You make all of us from Wisconsin proud! I may take you up on your tour offer since I plan on going to Bowling Green towards the end of the week. I could use a peek at the 900 too....

 

The all new Chevy Malibu is a decent machine; but the old one was a piece of crap on four wheels according to my couple of experiences with them as well as consumerreview.com where consumers rated their experiences with them.

YET JD Power had them rated at 5 stars for almost everything pertaining to initial quality!

YET other surveys agreed they were terrible cars in terms of quality and durability.

I have a theory on this; only a theory, but my guess is that they KEY is that this is an INITIAL quality survey. With today's modern manufacturing processes, getting stuff put together to spec, is becoming an increasingly and increasingle distant indicator as to how the car is going to hold up after some milage.

If something goes wrong within 90 days, then it was a defective part, or assembled improperly from the factory. If it goes from after 90 months then it just plain' ol' wore out. To me, I care more about the 90 month mark... not the 90 day mark.

Furthermore, one car may, by spec, have a cheap or crappy design. Is anything wrong with it technically? Nope. I mean if the dealer goes to replace the part with another one, it's going to be equally crappy. So even though it's a cheap design, it's not technically defective. My GMT 800 Silverado had one of the most impressively cheap interiors I've ever seen on any modern day vehicle. Painted hollow 1/8th inch thick PVC plastic dash? Dash paint that rubs off on my finger if I touch the dash in a certain area often enough? Snap-on assembly about as tight as the last lego kit I got as a kid?

Now was anything wrong with the interior parts? Besides the paint coming off, and a bunch of squeeks that I just stopped even bothering to go to the dealer for because I didn't want to spend half my free saturdays at my dealership.. no. But it still didn't feel like I was driving a solidly crafted machine.

So again, we still go into another somewhat immeasurable detail. Just because something isn't technically broken, doesn't mean it doesn't just suck by default.

With all of that said, I prefer almost everything about the Tahoe to the Armada. Both interiors are cheap IMO, although the Armada has the advantage in materials and the Tahoe has the advantage in build. The Armada has a strong advantage in terms of the motor, but outside of that, the Tahoe is a much better choice IMO. Much stronger and more refined frame, much better rear end, traction system I would more likely trust off road, etc, etc.