Correct, but with the Land Cruiser / LX470 you are paying for quality. I don't know of any other off-road SUV on the American market that is built as well as these two.....although the recently discontinued, military-derived Mercedes G-Wagon (Gelandewagen ) had a body, frame, and doors literally like bank vaults, with three locking differentials. Getting into one and shutting the doors was like climbing into a Moseler safe.

 

go test drive both and see for yourself,landcruiser rides like a truck,

 

All the mentioned SUV's drive with their own individual feel. I would hope someone would drive the SUV before they bought it

 

IMO both the Qx56 and Escalade are nothing but utter trash ghetto bling mobiles. Get yourself MB G class, or LX470, or MDX. Or better yet, a Range Rover.

 

I can't agree with the M-B G-class or the Land Rover. Like the QX56, M-B and Land Rover products have been too unreliable.....although if you are going off-road, the Range Rover is at its best........and superb.

 

Until you have to tow it home

 

Well, when it comes to Rovers, the reliability is really irrelevant, because after all they are Rovers. Gotta love them.

 

Well, the Range Rover combine comfort, plushness, and off-road mountain-goat ability probably better than any other SUV out there. Avoid the Range Rover Sport, though, for off-road prowess....its wheels and tires are more biased toward dry-pavemant on-road performance and handling.

 

Buy one and tell us all about how great it is

 

If you want, I'll formally review one, but right now all of my extra cash is going into retirement.

You can also read about it from a number of other sources besides me....there are plenty of auto test publications and web sites.

I think the original choice, too, here on the thread, was between a QX56 and an Escalade. Of the three, ( including the Range Rover ) I would choose the Escalade....it is the most reliable of the three and well-suited for on-road pavement driving, and now as an acceptably well-crafted interior.....something previous models didn't.

 

"You do know..."

What kind of statement is that to make without providing at least some reference material with you?
It's like you said it... so it MUST be true.

I'm not going to tell you it's not true because I don't have any factual numbers to back up what I've pretty consistently read and heard over time. I will however ask what source of information you're using to make such a confident statement and why you don't care to share it.

I've never sat down and compared the relatively impossible to find, typically unpublished, actual torsional and bending rigidity specifications of the Titan's frame... nor have I seen anyone test its natural resonant frequency responses. I do however know that more than one review I read when the Titan first came out specifically mentioned the frame felt like it had a lot less rigidity than others on the market at the time... and that was before the new GM trucks for 2007.

Oh, and for what it's worth, the frame rigidity of a body on frame structure has very little to do with off-road prowess. So saying the Titan is such a great off roader because it has the stiffest BOF structure in its class, doesn't really make sense. A stiff structure helps with a LOT of stuff including potential durability (though, to a point... you don't want it so stiff that when an accident occurs something snaps instead of bends), ride quality (the stiffer the frame the more accurately the rest of the suspension can be tuned due to a lower range of external forces acting as variables), etc...

 

This problem is usually dealt with, on unibody vehicles, by designing crumple zones into the front and rear, and leaving a super-rigid zone around the cabin protecting the occupants. Mercedes and Volvo, despite their well-known problems and unreliability in other areas, have nevertheless done this better than any other automakers.

 

I don't have the source anymore. I just remember reading back in 2004 when the Titan and F150 came out it went up against all the other trucks and the F150 won but the Titan was 2nd by like 1 point. The frame in the F150 and Titan was the strongest of them all, and the Titan had the best off-road and towing ability out of all the trucks back in 2004. Even though the F150 had a slightly higher tow capacity it did not tow as well.

I think it was some type of trailer magazine and one of the truck/car magazines that did the tests.

Don't forget the F150 video of them cutting the all thet trucks apart and showing weaknesses? They showed every trucks frame compared to the F150 EXCEPT the Titan and it was proven back then the Titan had a stronger frame over the f150 that is why they didn't show it.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f...x.asp?id=frame

 

Escelade without a doubt. I do not find the QX more luxurious and IMO the 07 Escalade looks a heck of a lot better. Infact it is probably one of, if not the best looking full size SUV out right now.

 

I work at a Caddy dealership and can say without a doubt that the new '07+ Escalades feel like a totally dofferent clase of SUV that the last version. We just recent had a 2006 QX56 with around 2,000 miles (practically new).

The QX56 definitely felt for civic...quieter ride, smoother steering/suspension, whereas the Escalade is the bad boy of SUVs. Loud, deep exhaust, commanding view, ride is a little harsh but very stable.

Both SUVs offer great passenger/cargo room. The ESV has about the same room behind the 3rd rom seats as the short body Esc has behind the 2nd row seats. Then you put down the 3rd and 2nd rows on the ESV and you can damn near fit a Mini! The QX has more clever/hidden compartments than the Esc, but the Escalade has a deper center console and door pockets.

The QX seats felt MUCH better than the Esc, being soft/comfortable yet very supportive in all the right areas. The Escalade seats are just, well.....flat.

If I were going to get a large luxury SUV I'd a Lexus LX470. Hands down. BUT, I'd wait until the next generation/refresh (2008?).