I'm looking at Expeditions and Tahoe / Yukons in the $10-15k range. This puts me in the 2002-2005 range, and it looks like the Fords can be had for lower bucks with similar miles. Why is this? I like they GM styling better, but should I be looking at the fords to get better bang for the buck?
Oh, great throbbing brain of GRM, what do I need to know?
And how bad will I regret it if I sell my LGT wagon?
IIRC your budget should potentially put you into an Excursion with the 7.3L Turbodiesel, although that's even bigger than people's houses. Supposedly indestructible, too, but that might be because I haven't owned one yet.
Tim said what I wanted to say! I second spending that money on a Ford with the 7.3
That's parallel to my pricing. I can find Expeditions down here in that year range $3k on average, with reasonable quality I suppose. A similar Chevy/GMC runs more. I do know I hear more PS pumps squealing on Fords than Chevys...
All I can add is that the fords are just so ugly, although I don't mind navigators but then the air ride is a whole new set of problems. I'd go for the Yukon, thirsty but pretty, which I know is not good reasoning, but this is GRM, we're not known for good reasoning.
I can't say fro sure, but when it comes to trucks...from the old S-10 on up in size to the biggest Chevys, in many areas of the country there seems to be a "Chevy tax". That is, when there appear to be comparable Chevys and Fords for sale, the Chevy is always priced higher.
I'm not sure why (I didn't ask) but my brother traded a Tahoe that he loved for an Explorer. Both had/have 4WD, a necessity for him as a firefighter. We talked cars the last time I saw him but it was all about his daughter's Honda Civic (I drive one, too). He never said anything about about the Explorer...I just happened to see him drive off in it.
My suggestion is to drive them both. I've driven a few Expeditions of that vintage and Tahoes as well. The 'hoes just feel better. To me, the Expys always felt .... like a weeble wobble. The frame sits a lot farther inside the body than the GM's and, to me, gives it a really unsettling feeling.
Suburbans can be had in 3/4 ton with a diesel as well.
I want to do a ford at some point and do a vegistroke kit
http://www.biofuelstechnologies.com/
In reply to Jaynen:
I just went thru this myself. I ended up with an '05 Tahoe 4x4 w 30K miles for 12,000.
I'd take a 5.3 vs the 4.6 or 5.4 found in the Ford products. This is manily due to reliability of the engine, power, and ease of service.
Fit and finish on the GM products (I did look at some ford/lincoln expeds/aviator/navigators) just felt better.
Why would anyone buy a tahoe over a suburban? Same price, same mileage, but you get 2-3 more feet of interior room and better towing manners due to the longer wheelbase
Aeromoto wrote: Why would anyone buy a tahoe over a suburban? Same price, same mileage, but you get 2-3 more feet of interior room and better towing manners due to the longer wheelbase
I would agree with this. Plus with gas prices being higher, the Suburbans are cheaper than the Tahoes, at least around here, especially 3/4 ton versions.
Jaynen wrote: Suburbans can be had in 3/4 ton with a diesel as well.
Aren't those just the 90s ones, not the early to mid 2000s that that OP was looking at?
I'm a Ford guy, but when it comes to full sized SUV's, Suburban. Done. They've been around forever and they seem better sorted. Granted, I would look more at 90's versions.
Will you regret selling the LGT? Probably, depending on how often you actually use the additional capabilities.
BoxheadTim wrote:Jaynen wrote: Suburbans can be had in 3/4 ton with a diesel as well.Aren't those just the 90s ones, not the early to mid 2000s that that OP was looking at?
I don't know the years. I just know when I was looking at full size I was looking diesel because then it works as a tow vehicle as well
I have a friend with an Excursion with the turbo 7.3L Powerstroke. He has a modded exhaust and an economy tune on a Diablo chip and regularly gets up to 28 mpg. That can't be beat.
My daily driver is a 7.3L Powerstroke truck 430K. It's a beast. A GM diesel is an absolute turd in comparison.
I prefer the Suburban. It's a better sorted ride. I've owned 3. The Ford feels a little like a pig.
But that 7.3L engine....that sweet, sweet engine! 
Ya know, the styling alone is almost enough for me to rule out the Ford, but the points about how many GM's are on the road and that nobody has anything bad to say about them points me that direction. I used to have a '98 Yukon and loved it too, but had some transfer case issues around 100k that cost more than a couple bucks to fix.
I don't know that we'd really use the extra space of a Suburban vs. a TaYukho. But, they Subs do seem to be about $1k less expensive for similar condition and miles.
For the most part this will be a people carrier. We do have an 18' boat, and my wife's Outback pulls it ok but a bigger vehicle would definitely be more relaxing on the highway with the boat.
This is probably just my automotive ADD going as I've had the Legacy three years now... But, I'm itching for something different, and a recurring theme for me is a big SUV or an is300, and after only just barely fitting our stuff in the Outback for a weekend away I think we would use the extra space on a regular basis--we have another baby due--tomorrow!
I'd take a 5.3 vs the 4.6 or 5.4 found in the Ford products. This is manily due to reliability of the engine, power, and ease of service.
My take exactly. There is a WORLD of difference between working on a 5.3/5.7 LS and the ford 4.6/5.4. The chevy is EASY to work on! Easy enough that it really stands out for it from a mechanic's point of view..
Although, id rather work on a 5.4 expedition than a 7.3 excursion.. i do NOT like those engine bays.
However, having said that, my experience has been that driving 7.3 Excursions is actually FUN! Combine that with mileage, acceleration, and reliability that at LEAST equals the gas expedition if not significantly beating it, and it makes a strong case. I am not a big fan of gigantic vehicles for uses totalling more than 5k miles a year, but i definitely understand the appeal of the 7.3 Excursion. 
Just watch out for Castech heads on the Chevy 5.3.
Easy Peasy. GM = Resale value. Excellent ride. Best ever ever reliability. Best ever ever ever seats. Easier to work on. Low parts cost. And I think the 5.3 wins on fuel economy and power too. Ford has third row seats that fold into the floor and more duded out interiors.
At one point I was actually debating one as "when we need more than fits in the Matrix" IE more stuff or more than 5 people plus tow rig instead of looking at replacing the Matrix with a minivan
For me though. The big gotcha of owning one of these is economy. 28mpg on the highway from a chip and tune? Hold 8 people and boat loads of stuff? Those chevy seats better really be magic carpets
If you're buying a road salt country Expedition, make sure the lower control arms don't look like they did on our '99. It was a bit of a surprise when I put my fingers through them while I had it up on the lift to put snow tires on last fall.
PeterAK wrote: Oh, great throbbing brain of GRM, what do I need to know?
Pretty sure most of what's great and throbbing around here has nothing to do with brains. 
Saying the chevys have the best seats... wow.
And best reliability? I mean, the 4l65 is much improved over the 4l60 but i still rebuilt a decent number of them when i worked in a trans shop 5 years ago when they were 5 years newer...
Overall i think they're reliable, but saying they're the best is silly. Overall, the ford 4r70 is more reliable imo.
Our suburbans at work have been pretty much bulletproof. In the winter we plow bus stops and routes with them and pull stuck buses with them and haven't had many problems.
There is a nice looking '04 Suburban at one of the local dealerships. I haven't gone to look at it yet but the sales guy tells me there is some rust starting to form at the bottom of the doors. Other than that, it looks great. If I were to get this fixed by a body shop, how soon should I expect it to come back? Sounds like it is pretty minor at this point.
You'll need to log in to post.
