Durango/Expedition/Tahoe - Chassis and Suspension differences?

Oshkosh-P

Observer
Hello,

i know there are many people who after choosing one brand will always defend their one of the "big 3", but maybe someone got the chances to actually compare those trucks under rough conditions.

All of em are body on frame based on their euivalent Pickup counterpart, but maybe there already differences framewise.

As far as i know all of them are also entirely indepndant suspension, but maybe there are also big differences?

The only other truck i do know of this design that is not a military vehicle is the Land Rover Disco gen 3/4, which got a pretty strong frame and suspension, but shouldn't those 3 be even bigger sturdier?

Greetings
 

Fierokid

New member
I don't know for sure but I believe the durango is unibody/frame.. so not a truck chassis.. And up until GMs new body style That isn't out yet, the tahoe/suburban are solid rear axle and independent front... what year range are you looking at? A brand new one is going to be completely different from one a generation or 2 ago.. But for what it's worth I love my 2002 suburban 2500.. haven't found anything it can't do (aside from pass a gas station)
 

XJLI

Adventurer
For the 2018s...

Durango is uniframe, a stretched Jeep WK2, which is still based on the old Mercedes/Daimler platform. IFS/IRS.

Current Tahoe/Burb/Yukon is still loosely based on the pickup frame with a coil sprung, solid rear axle. 2020 models are going IRS.

Explorer is unibody but the Expedition is body on frame on "its own platform" which is a modified F150 frame.
 

Oshkosh-P

Observer
Oh ok so only the Expedition is close to the F-150 frame with a different rear end for the IRS?

How loosely is the GM connectet to the truck?

Can any one of those be compared in terms of strnght to the Discovery 3?
 

Martinjmpr

Wiffleball Batter
How loosely is the GM connectet to the truck?

Not sure what you're asking here - are you asking how "similar" the GM wagons (Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon) are to the equivalent pickup? In terms of "major" drivetrain components the GMT-800 vehicles (2000 - 2006) are almost identical to the equivalent 1500. Suburbans and Tahoes have the 5.3 V8 and the same auto transmission.

Starting in 2007 with the GMT 900 series, low range was an option on the Suburban/Tahoe (I believe it came with the tow package and/or the Z71 package on the years the Z71 package was offered.) So there are 2007+ Tahoe/Suburbans and non-Denali Yukons and Yukon XLs with single-speed transfer cases. This is in contrast to the pickups where all the 4x4 pickups have low range. Otherwise, axles and such are identical to the 1/2 ton pickups AFAIK.

"Denali" package Yukons and Yukon XL's have a different drivetrain. 6.0 V8 (maybe up to 6.2 now, not sure) and the 4x4 models are full-time 4wd with a non-lockable single speed transfer case (IOW no 4wd controls at all.) [/quote]

Can any one of those be compared in terms of strnght to the Discovery 3?

When you mean "strength", I think the "major components" (engine, transmission, transfer case, axles, brakes, steering) are pretty sturdy on all of them. On the "fancier" trim levels I think the problems you run into are what computer geeks might call the "peripherals", that is, the things that aren't necessary to operate the vehicle but that aid in your comfort and convenience. The more complicated vehicles get the more more "failure points" there are. Things like power seats (mine haven't worked right since I got the truck 3 years ago), climate control systems, power windows and doors, power tailgates, power folding seats - those are the things people tend to have problems with as vehicles get older and older.

And of course, from the manufacturers standpoint, anything that fails after the warranty period isn't really a problem for them. And really, the manufacturer isn't worried about keeping anybody happy except the first buyer, because the manufacturer didn't get a single dime from anybody after the first purchaser.

One example of this is the notorious "blend door" issue on some of the older Suburbans and Tahoes (and I think it might also affect some of the same generation of Silverado pickup but I'm not sure.) This was an issue where a "blend door" motor failure deep inside the HVAC system would seriously hamper the ability of the HVAC system to work. The motor/door itself was a relatively cheap part (maybe $50) but the problem was that in order to get to it, it required that the entire dashboard be removed, which unless you could do it yourself, was something like $1000 in labor alone. As a result, most people just "do without" even though in some cases it might mean having a much less effective heating or air conditioning function.
 

Oshkosh-P

Observer
Yeah well the unnecessary complications with electronic are pretty much what i would have to live with anyway, if i want a certein level of comfort. Otherwise you would have to get a much older vehicle with all the downsides that come with it.

But what about the backbone? Frame/"axles"/diff? The Land Rover Disco 3 seems to be a good compromise, but maybe a Pickup based truck like the Expedition is both more overbuilt and also a bit cheaper.

Greetings
 

rayra

Expedition Leader
Have to factor in the difference weight classes, too, the frames and drivetrain components are different in a GM 2500 vs a 1500.

what is it you are after, which is 'best'? What's your primary criteria / desires? There's some major differences in sizes, weights and interior room at play in your named vehicles. And the terrain you intend to use them in likewise impose some restrictions that make the larger / longer vehicles favored or disfavored.
 

Oshkosh-P

Observer
The size and weight is kinda a factor which why the obviously stronger super dutys are not incloded.

Problem is a G-Wagon or HD-Land Cruiser, so the vehicles in this "size group" who are the strongest, are both really expensive over here and/ore offer absolutly no comfort. A Nissan Patrol would be a good option, but is also rare these days.

The LR Disco 3 seems like a good compromise, but a short wheelbase Expedition is not that much bigger and also not that costly.
 

plumber mike

Adventurer
I want to say that I read somewhere that the new Nissan Armada is the same as a Nissan Patrol....or whatever Nissan calls their Landcruiser flagship.
All of the big three SUVs are heading for minivan replacement buyers it seems.

278000 on my Yukon 2500. Thought about selling it but it’s so handy and reliable that it’s worth more to me than anyone else. But it was built with some stout components. Engine out of a medium duty truck. Axles are the same as a one ton truck. It is not replaceable by anything new. Ended up buying a pickup to replace it as I like stout driveline components more than creature comforts
 

Halligan

Adventurer
I think the Tahoe is probably the best choice of the 3 you mention. We've had a 2003 Z71 Tahoe in my family since new and overall it's been a great truck. Body on frame, Independent front suspension with torsion bars, solid rear axle with coil springs. The 5.3 liter engine has 147,000 miles and still purrs like the day I bought it. Transmission was serviced with fluid and filter only once, probably around 50,000 miles and it still shifts like new.

Most repairs have been general wear items but it needed the front blend door replaced and it's needed the rear heat/ac module and blend door module.
 

marshal

Burrito Enthusiast
the LC 200 uses a frame derived from the Tundra, so does the Sequoia. Basically the front half of the frames (IE front suspension, engine mounts etc) are all identical across those three vehicles. The rear portions are entirely different. The Sequoia uses its own independent rear suspension that is unique to itself.

the sequoia is essentially an IRS Tundra.
 

Oshkosh-P

Observer
Hm of course this still leaves us with the question: is the Sequuoia comparable in frame/suspension strneght to the L200, which could be considered as one of the strongest trucks in this class. Of course the solid axle will probably be stronger than the IRS - but is it significant?
 

marshal

Burrito Enthusiast
the sequoia is plenty strong, an since they all share the same frame I wouldn't worry about anything. the 200 has higher tow rating by 600lbs than the sequoia due to the sequoia being larger and heavier. I personally wouldn't be questioning the strength of the frame with all that said.

there isn't an inherent strength difference between a solid axle and independent, it really just boils down to engineering. Generally independent suspensions are not as heavily reinforced as solid axles because they are not supposed to see the level of strain a solid axle is meant to. That said, Toyota of all brands, actually engineered a really solid IRS system for the Sequoia, to the point that it was considered for while of dropping the solid axle from the Tundra and leaving it IRS like the sequoia - plus the ride is much improved. Obviously that idea never came to fruition.

If you are buying used, the Sequoia is a bargain. Thirsty SUV's took a huge hit in the early 2010's with high fuel prices, and their resale never recovered. now would be the time to pick one up.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,539
Messages
2,875,663
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top