There are certainly worse styles to copy.

 

It's certainly interesting. I just sat in the current Navigator at my local auto show and it was a disaster inside and out. Just really cheap materials everywhere, the thing is a dinosaur that aside from a facelift last year hasn't changed in over a decade.

 

I frequently get them as an Uber Black car. They're indeed pretty crappy, but I hear the EcoBoost motor is a welcome improvement over the ancient 5.4L Triton V8 they were using.

 

I agree the present Navigator is way outdated. Much of its original bling and attractiveness to athletes, singers, entertainers, etc.....transferred to the Escalade a number of years ago.

 

One advantage the current Navigator/Expidition offers is A LOT more space in the 2nd and 3rd row seats in the standard wheelbase model vs a Tahoe or Escalade. Really can't believe GM didn't go with an independent rear suspension design with their SUV's, Ford went to that 10 years ago and it shows because there is so much more room in them.

 

You're kill'n me smalls. Fixed

 

I don't exactly agree with you. I rather like the styling and the full size interior.

The engine they are currently using was never used in the past.

 

All of the full-size Ford/Lincoln and GM (Chevy/GMC/Cadillac) SUVs come in both standard and long-wheelbase versions, so make sure you aren't comparing apples and oranges. A long-wheelbase Ford/Lincoln, regardless of the suspension and axle types, will obviously have more interior room than a standard-wheelbase GM competitor, and vice-versa.

A traditional truck live-rear axle, with its cast-iron housing and durable parts inside, is usually best for the stress of towing or carrying heavy loads, though it may not ride or handle with the same sophistication as an IRS.

For example, not that it's truck/SUV-related, but one reason why the Ford Mustang (except for some Cobras) held onto its live-rear axle for a half-century is that Ford knew that much of the Mustang's buyer-base is young, immature, aggressive-driving kids that regularly do burnouts. The big-heavy live axle/differential and its durable gears generally took that punishment pretty well....better than the Camaro and its IRS, which had more sensitive universal-joints on the axle drive-shafts.

 

I assume he has enough common sense to compare like wheelbases, in which case the Ford/Lincoln SUV's trounce the GM trio every time in terms of space. I'm in these things on a weekly basis and that much is obvious (data backs it up too).

Several SUV's have proven that, for the loads these SUV's are rated to tow, IRS-equipped vehicles are no worse than the GM trio when properly set up. People have been towing with GL's, Armada/QX56/QX80's, Expedition/Navigator's, and LR3/LR4/RRS/RR's for over a decade with good results.

 

True, but anyone can accidentally overlook things.....I sometimes do myself. And it is certainly not a barb at Aron9000...I respect him and have a high opinion of his automotive views, which more or less mirror a number of mine.



But are they towing the same ratings? And the Suburban/Tahoe's continung popularity shows that a lot of people still like those vehicles, live axle or not.

Like I said in an earlier post, though, I generally don't care how a vehicle is designed, as long as I'm satisfied with the results.

 

Yes, they either have the same tow rating or in some cases tow more. And no one was debating the GM trio's popularity. They have great brand equity and do a lot of things well. That doesn't take away from my what I've said.

 

Thanks. GM still going with the solid rear axle in their SUV's is just a cost cutting measure, pure and simple.

Also I drove for a limo company a few years ago, so I have quite a bit of seat time in the last gen Suburban, Escalade, Denali, and the current Expidition and Navigator. Overall I liked driving the GM trucks better, but the Ford trucks had more space and were more comfortable for the passengers. The GM trucks were much faster and handled a lot nicer, they drove like they were much smaller than they really were. The Fords rode nicer, probably the best riding car I've ever been in was our long wheelbase Expidition. It felt A LOT more solid than the GM trucks. The handling and steering was completely lifeless and numb, reminded me of how old cars used to try and completely eliminate any feel of the road.

 

The GM products handled better with a live rear axle? Usually it's the other way around.

 

I see you don't keep up with this segment. The GM trio has been praised for their handling in comparison to the Ford offerings since the GMT800 era.

 

Basically, yes, I do keep up, but occasionally may miss some details.

One thing I don't quite follow you on, though, is how the live-axle GM vehicles can handle better than the IRS Fords if the IRS, as you say, is inherently superior. Apparantly, more than just axle and suspension types are involved in handling.