Test Drive...?

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

gtnator

Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Posts
646
Reaction score
181
Location
CO
So had the opportunity to test drive a loaded limited max and a XLT FX4 max-

I'm coming from a 2010 Escalade ESV so the that the only full size SUV I can compare these to. The Escalade has the magnetic ride shocks and I replaced the factory 22" wheels with 18" wheels with larger sidewall tires.

In no particular order here are some impressions- keep in mind these were limited dealer test drives so these are initial impressions.

RIDE/HANDLING

No comparison - I really don't think the Escalade ever rode well- but the Expedition is light years better.

The loaded Limited had the 22" wheels and CDC- this vehicle was very impressive- very smooth ride over patched asphalt and potholed roads and railroad tracks, very little impact sensation and no bounce or shudder through structure. On a smooth highway it was like butter- I honestly was shocked- I expected to not really like the 22" wheel ride but boy was I wrong. I would compare the ride to mid/high end sedans- rode as well to me as an Audi A6, Honda Accord, or Lexus ES300.
Also as a note- this unit does have a fairly high ride height- noticeably taller than the Escalade when parked next to each other- and also noticeable from the drivers seat. I do think this is why some reviewers may feel the vehicle drives bigger than the GM units ( although I have the previous generation GMT900 platform) - its not that its ponderous or lacks steering response, but you just feel like your in a larger vehicle- I think ride height and the view out of the windshield of a fairly flat wide hood induces this impression, its more of a visual impression versus a handling response impression.

FX4- this unit rides on 18" wheels with 65 sidewall tires. I have more seat time in this rig, so more road variation traveled.
Overall ride is very good. On smooth roads I don't think there is much difference between the two Expedition vehicles - still light years better than the Escalade. On rougher roads/pavement would say the Fx4 is not as smooth as the limited/CDC unit. A little more impact sharpness comes through to the body and over a longer stretch of rough road I did notice more roughness coming through. Again way better than the Escalade but not a impressive as the limited/CDC.

I was also able to drive this unit on a more high twisty two lane road- the steering is nicely weighted although I do think there is more steering feedback from the GM GMT900 platform. Overall limits are very good- the vehicle was able to carry more velocity thru the turns than the Escalade, and honestly more velocity than I would want to carry with any passengers in the vehicle. My overall impression is the FX4 is more stiffly shocked than the Limited/CDC.

INTERIOR QUALITY

The XLT unit was equipped with the 202A package
Limited equipped with the 302A
2010 Escalade is Platinum model

Expedition- In both units I was impressed. The soft touch points on dashboard, armrests, and door panels is good to very good overall. I don't know but my impression is the touch points on doors is leather in the Limited versus a pleather material in the XLT- although I'm not sure of this. Either way the interior quality as equipped on the two Expeditions is very similar. The major difference is the wood like trim used on the center counsel and door panels of the limited versus the graphite plastic used in the XLT. I like the impression of quality better on the Limited, although my wife had the opposite response. She felt the wood trim in the Limited looked artificial and appreciated the simple/honest plastic of the XLT. To the touch the materials both feel of quality solid materials.

I own a 2014 Ford fusion energy and a lot of the switch gear and plastics look and feel familiar. Of note the rotary knobs for radio/climate/ and transmission are the same in both Expedition vehicles- and I found the tactile response and weighty feel of the units to be of premium quality- nice as these are going to be the most used switchgear in the vehicles.

I will agree with one review that I read that the plastic surrounding the center stack leaves a little to be desired. Its a common ford plastic that I remember from my 2005 F150- there is nothing inherently wrong with it but at these price points it would be nice to see little more effort. Also based on the Ford website I thought the XLT had aluminum trim- but is the graphite color plastic.

The seats in both in terms of construction, padding and support. and quality of leather were of good quality. I believe the seats in both the Limited and XLT were the same- Front seat quality was great extremely comfortable- same with the second and third row quality. It might just be because I saw the limited first- but I do feel the leather quality was higher in the limited- not sure of this, just how I remember it.

I would say the the plastics, and switchgear are superior to the Escalade.

SPACE

The front seat passengers have as much leg room and shoulder room as any person could want. I'm not a big guy, just under 6' and 190lbs- so I can position the drivers seat so far back I can touch the pedals- so I would say plenty of room.

Second row- both expeditions had bench seats. Leg room is plentiful. All three seating positions in the third row slide and recline independently, and the amount of legroom is awesome. I was comfortable in any of the three seats, and would be for an extended amount of time. Our current Escalade has captain chairs in the second row- so I can't make a direct comparison- but my impression is the Expedition has more legroom and space in the second row.

Third row- better seating position in the Expedition and honestly a decent amount of leg room. The fact that all the seating positions in the second row can slide allows you to allocate leg room between the second and third rows. I found the third row to be inhabitable and fairly comfortable but with the second row bench in place as an adult I wouldn't want to spend a longer trip in the third row.

cargo space- in the rear cargo I was actually surprised but the escalade ESV does seem to have larger cargo space- width they are about the same, it just seems like an extra 3-4" of depth for the Escalade.

Center counsel space is huge- I think it could swallow a 12 pack of soda- there is a small sliding shelf to help organize and there is a 12vDC receptacle in the storage area as well. i would say similar to the space in the Escalade- GM splits this space into two separate compartments- so more of preference than total size.

Glovebox- Usefully sized in the Expedition- two shelves and to me a fair amount of room- much more useful than the Escalade.

ENGINE

So this is my first time with the 3.5 ecoboost. All I can say is the Expedition moves really well. I honestly didn't floor the Expedition so I couldn't tell you who would win in a drag race- but the ecoboost just has tons of torque- thats the main personality of this motor - just dip into the throttle and the expedition just goes. Where the 6.2 v8 in the Escalade needs some revs to get a response the ecoboost is more like a diesel motor, no revs really needed just a massive reserve of torque that moves the vehicle forward.

I do have an aftermarket exhaust on the Escalade so I do get a nice burble and exhaust note from the V8, in comparison the ecoboost really doesn't have an exhaust note or much personality. The ecoboost is smooth- better throttle response and most likely performance compared to the GM V8- I think around town the expedition will be more responsive.

TRANSMISSION

The six speed in the GMT600 platform works- I find some the gearing ratios to be a bit wide but overall no complaints from me.

The 10 speed in the Expedition shifts smoothly and in everyday driving you wouldn't know its a 10 speed transmission- this is a compliment. I will say in more extended driving in the XLT FX4 model - there is a little searching when moving at slow speeds - as an example slow roll where you don't come to a complete stop and then add throttle - too light on the throttle and it searches for a second- more decisive on throttle and its all good to go.

ELECTRONICS

I like the info display between the gauges on the 202a package( std on Limited and above) there is a lot of information available and you can configure your own preference menu. Not as cool as the the virtual cockpit on Audi/VW but good vehicle information. The new sync 3 ( or at least new to me) works well - I like the interface and the apple carpal integration is awesome and honestly if your doing carplay or android auto you don;t need the navigation. The touchscreen is responsive and has a nice matte finish that seems to help reduce glare and fingerprints.

When equipped with the 202A package both Expeditions have multiple USB port in each row plus a built in WIFI hotspot-

I will say the largest difference in the trim levels to me was the B&O sound system. Double check but I don't think you can get this system in the XLT. Based on the my small sample size- I was really impressed with the B&O system - comparing the two systems- its not really close, I can live with the base system in the XLT- I love the B&O system. Much more depth. clarity , and bass response on the B&O.

Other items I can't really comment on- the Limited I test drove had the adaptive cruise control, auto parking, 360 degree camera ( pretty cool) lane keep assist, pre collision etc. I couldn't really sample all of that in a test drive. I did get the lane assist when exiting an offramp and crossing the shoulder line marker. I believe you can equip any model with these features if they are important to you.

Thats pretty much it, I like the new Expedition I think its a very competitive vehicle in the segment and if you need a full size rig you really need to give it look.

For me- I bought the XLT FX4 max- now its on to some bumper upgrades, some LED lighting, and going to replace the factory speakers with some upgraded units.

If you have more questions I will try to check back in and answer.


Thank you for the detailed review and congrats on your purchase. Reading through your review, it became obvious to me that you really pay attention automotive details that are important to "car guys" like me (and many others on this forum).

Therefore, I'm guessing that you have probably compared the Expy to the current GM offerings. How would you say the new Expy compares to a new Tahoe/Yukon or Suburban? Those GM vehicles look really nice, especially the Yukon Denali (in my opinion). I don't know if its fair to even bring up a new Escalade unless we can talk about the new Navi, but maybe I'm wrong.
 

gtnator

Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Posts
646
Reaction score
181
Location
CO
Took my wife to test drive a platinum yesterday and she loved it. However, we may end up saving about 16k on a 17 Denali closeout. It's insane what they are discounting on them right now!!!

Yes, I noticed that too. Where I live they are offering $15-18k off MSRP for 2017 Yukon Denali and $10k off of 2018's. I've never seen that much discount all at once, especially for the "next" model year, a 2018 model during the end of the 2017 calendar year. I believe its because GM knows they finally have some real competition from Ford. Not that the older Expy wasn't competition, it was, but this 2018 Expy might take the crown.
 
OP
OP
dlcorbett

dlcorbett

Full Access Members
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Posts
2,557
Reaction score
899
Location
tx
I can help here. For reference, i am comparing to the cadillac escalade(15) but i have sat in the gm utes and driven silverados with the 5.3l so i will use this as well:

As far as interior goes, the expy has a much higher seating position than the gm utes, helping them feel a bit more spacious, esp in regards to hip room. I aldo noticed that the gap btw seat and console is smaller in the gm utes. Im not a fan of the esc seats but love the silv seats, the ltd expy seats are on par with the silv in terms of cushion and support. The plat expy seats are closer to the esc, but they are still more comfy. The std esc seats are too firm but the esc plat seats may be better. I wont go into materials, but i will say the esc interior is gorgeous but cheap, theres a piece already loose on the dash. This will mean somethin if you want a navi. The tahoe n silv feel their price however. To make it easier, the tahoe feels closer to a car than the expy. If the rear passengers mean anything, theres no comparison, expy blows the gms away in terms of passenger n cargo space. The seats(2nd row)are the same lvl of comfort.

Feature content wise, they have around the same amt features but the expy has understandably more advanced function to feature. This is a wash.

Drive wise, the gms handle better, simple as that. Better steering feel and flatter around turns. However, the expy rides better in all applications, but the old expy drove better so not news here. Its on par with the armada, mayb better. The esc 6.2l is nice when you prod it, it still has that gm hesitation thing going on. The 5.3l is nice enough though, its plenty quick when its prodded. The 3.5l is quick in plat guise and has more of steady smoother power delivery.

Hopefully this comparison helps in this regard.
 

Mike Wolfe

Full Access Members
Joined
Jul 9, 2017
Posts
479
Reaction score
173
Location
Tonopah AZ
Interesting
FYI
The 3.5L Turbo engine has more torque than the GM 6.2L at sea level
The 3.5L Turbo engine will produce the same torque & hp at high altitudes whereas the N/A Gm 6.2L will lose about 3% torque & hp for each 1000 ft in altitude
Therefore the 6.2L will produce about 357hp & 391 lb ft of torque in Denver while the 3.5L will have 480 lb ft of torque in Denver
JUST SAYIN:emotions34:
 

JExpedition07

That One Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Posts
6,509
Reaction score
3,119
Location
New York
Interesting
FYI
The 3.5L Turbo engine has more torque than the GM 6.2L at sea level
The 3.5L Turbo engine will produce the same torque & hp at high altitudes whereas the N/A Gm 6.2L will lose about 3% torque & hp for each 1000 ft in altitude
Therefore the 6.2L will produce about 357hp & 391 lb ft of torque in Denver while the 3.5L will have 480 lb ft of torque in Denver
JUST SAYIN:emotions34:

the 3.5 will not make full power at that elevation it still loses power, just not as bad with turbos. To the rest i could care less i like big bore, big displacement V8s You can wind up a V6 all you want I’ll still buy the V8 first. The L86 is a great motor and 460 torque is plenty more than anyone who owns an SUV needs. It’s a corvette engine that’s capable of 750 horse and 725 torque. My 5.4 has never not had enough power for me in any situation btw, just putting that out there. 6.2 sounds amazing, 420 horses, is full of life, and gets great mileage towing, for me it wins. I respect the ecoboosts capabilities but I’m a bigger motor guy. BTW the jury is still out on the gen 2 ecoboost reliability. So far gen 1 was pretty successful.
 
Last edited:

rumline

Full Access Members
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Posts
156
Reaction score
48
Location
Colorado
Therefore the 6.2L will produce about 357hp & 391 lb ft of torque in Denver while the 3.5L will have 480 lb ft of torque in Denver
Quibbles about turbos also losing power aside, this is exactly why I won't consider the GMs, better looking though they may be. I live at 7000 feet and will be pulling a trailer over the Rockies many times. Naturally-aspirated engines will be at 50% power going through the Eisenhower tunnel, right when you need power the most. If you've never driven I-70 between Denver and Grand Junction, you don't know what you're missing. ;-) A turbo in this situation is a no-brainer.

Thankfully capitalism works and we can each buy what best fits our needs.
 

Mike Wolfe

Full Access Members
Joined
Jul 9, 2017
Posts
479
Reaction score
173
Location
Tonopah AZ
I am a retired automotive engineer
Just to set the record straight. Because turbo's use absolute pressure sensors to control boost pressures they will produce the same hp & torque in the Eisenhower tunnel as they will at sea level. That is a proven fact.
N/A & supercharged engines will lose power at higher altitudes.
That is also a proven fact.
Some folks like the sound of a big v8 but facts are facts when it comes to high altitude go & torque.
 

JExpedition07

That One Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Posts
6,509
Reaction score
3,119
Location
New York
I am a retired automotive engineer
Just to set the record straight. Because turbo's use absolute pressure sensors to control boost pressures they will produce the same hp & torque in the Eisenhower tunnel as they will at sea level. That is a proven fact.
N/A & supercharged engines will lose power at higher altitudes.
That is also a proven fact.
Some folks like the sound of a big v8 but facts are facts when it comes to high altitude go & torque.

lol depends who you get your facts from. They did an Ike Gauntlet towing test on TFL and the 6.2 got better fuel mileage and accelerated up the hill better than the ecoboost despite being at “reduced power”. What something is on paper isn’t necessarily how it is in the world... and being in New York I’m not worried about power loss.
 

J_82

Full Access Members
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Posts
187
Reaction score
36
Location
Eagle Pass Texas
lol depends who you get your facts from. They did an Ike Gauntlet towing test on TFL and the 6.2 got better fuel mileage and accelerated up the hill better than the ecoboost despite being at “reduced power”. What something is on paper isn’t necessarily how it is in the world... and being in New York I’m not worried about power loss.
I thought I had seen the 6.2 being a little slower but got better MPG.
 
Top