WSJ: '07 Expedition EL Upsets Suburban in head to head test

Good.
The Expedition EL is a superior product.

The new Suburban is the best thing out there, and especially with the new looks, certainly looks better then the shitty Fords

efox:
I don't love Fords.

I think GM made a huge mistake by not matching Ford's IRS suspension which allows the Expedition's fold flat 3rd row. It saved GM a lot of money not redesigning the rear end, but it greatly reduces the usable space and comfort of the Suburban.

That really doesn't make a lot of sense. If that were the case, it would follow that the front suspension should be a solid axle too.

The benefits of IRS for handling, ride comfort, packaging, and 3rd seat room are clear for all to see. Certainly this article mentioned it as one of the deciding factors in the Expeditions win.

Plenty of vehicles on the road including SUVs have IRS and when do you ever hear of problems with rear axles ? I'm sure GM would be capable of matching what other manufacturers are doing, but the costs in doing so were more than GM wanted to absord.

The benefits of IRS are clear. Better handling, better ride comfort, better packaging, better 3rd road seat comfort. Plenty of manufacturers build vehicles with IRS systems, including SUVs that are durable, I'm sure GM could do the same if they wanted to spend the money.

Arguing for a solid rear axle in the rear begs the question, why not have a solid axle in the front?

Im with Will. The ford look ugly compared to the Chevy.

Solid axle in the rear because the rear suspension is designed to carry the load of luggage/passengers/heavy boat etc.

Needs to be durable.

Ford isn't going down without a fight. i like that. I know ford has good things up its sleeve. Just wait for the hybrid milan/fusion/zephyr (next yr. called mkz)

if GM is saying independent rear suspensions aren't rugged enough for offroad, then there feeding the public a line of crap. Some of the most capable off road vehicles have IRS like the Hummer H1 and Range Rover.

GMs excuse doesn't hold water, $ 65,000 Escalades aren't driven by contractors and most of the Tahoes and Suburbans aren't either.

4 speed tranys, push rods and solid rear axles is old tech no matter what GM says.

1995e34,

my point is if GM is saying they won't develop a IRS because of off road use, the H1 and Range Rover have proven that IRS is not only as good but even better off road than a solid axle.

Their argument about cop cars is a bogus one too, because cops also use Chargers and Impalas with IRS.

As for the cost of SUVs, the LR3 is cheaper than the Suburban tested in this article and it has a IRS. The Escalade cost over 60 grand, more than the LR3 so I don't see the point.

I don't know it seems GM is making a lot of weak excuses for sticking with old technology

irs is better than solid beam.
full stop.
ford is cheap.
even the mustang has it, and that's supposed to be a sports car.

but i take 1995's point about the farmer wanting the old tech, but if we all did that, we'd never advance. and the expedition is clearly a soccer mum truck.
but is solid beam tougher?
it's just more metal.

the mustang is supposed to be a muscle car, not a sports car.

but its Ford who is putting a new IRS system on the Expedition and Navigator and GM who seems stuck in a different generation technology wise.

yea I agree with you about the solid beam just being more metal not being any tuffer

oh.
1995's comment confused me. "there are suv buyers that would be turned off by IRS in the suburban"
maybe i should actually read articles.
that makes much more sense, gm not advancing. gm having modern suspension seemed to weird to be true.

I found this review on the 2007 Expedition while surfing around.

http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/FordExpedition/index2007.htm