Durango/Expedition/Tahoe - Chassis and Suspension differences?

al_burpe

Observer
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.
I recently bought a used Expedition but in the search process looked at the prices for Suburban, Armada, Sequoia, ect. While the Sequoia might be the best of the bunch, you still have to pay the used Toyota mark up. If you are looking for a bargain, you are going to have a lot harder time finding one with a Sequoia than the other brands. You might also get what you pay for too. My Expedition has been a POS.
 

marshal

Taco Enthusiast
I recently bought a used Expedition but in the search process looked at the prices for Suburban, Armada, Sequoia, ect. While the Sequoia might be the best of the bunch, you still have to pay the used Toyota mark up. If you are looking for a bargain, you are going to have a lot harder time finding one with a Sequoia than the other brands. You might also get what you pay for too. My Expedition has been a POS.
definitely get what you pay for
 
We bought a used 2013 expedition limited, 50k on it. Been flawless so far. Appears to have a boxed frame everywhere I can see. Rides great, far less costly than a similar age tahoe.
 

Oshkosh-P

Observer
Well in case of the Expedition i can even tell you the frame measurements of the boxed chassis in the middle of the truck right from the Ford spec sheet for builders: 225x75x2.5mm

At least that are the measurements for the standard F-150, the thickness increases in case of a really long wheelbase or extra payload packages to 2.8 or 3.8mm

But i guess the Expedition is pretty standard, so a very big profile but pretty thin metal, just like a Land Rover Defender with 185x70x2mm.

Unfortunatly i have no data from a Sequoia or Tahoe or LR Discovery to compare.

The Toyota J200 got 185x90x3.2mm, measured by a memeber of this forum. So a bit stronger as the Expedition, i would guess the Sequoia would be similiar.

@marshal : Would like to know the measurements of the power wagon, which should be much, much bigger in any way, since a Ford F-2/350 nowadays got 240x90x4.7.....
 

marshal

Taco Enthusiast
Well in case of the Expedition i can even tell you the frame measurements of the boxed chassis in the middle of the truck right from the Ford spec sheet for builders: 225x75x2.5mm

At least that are the measurements for the standard F-150, the thickness increases in case of a really long wheelbase or extra payload packages to 2.8 or 3.8mm

But i guess the Expedition is pretty standard, so a very big profile but pretty thin metal, just like a Land Rover Defender with 185x70x2mm.

Unfortunatly i have no data from a Sequoia or Tahoe or LR Discovery to compare.

The Toyota J200 got 185x90x3.2mm, measured by a memeber of this forum. So a bit stronger as the Expedition, i would guess the Sequoia would be similiar.

@marshal : Would like to know the measurements of the power wagon, which should be much, much bigger in any way, since a Ford F-2/350 nowadays got 240x90x4.7.....
box wall thickness ranges from 2.7mm to 7mm, same with the crossmembers, with 50kpsi steel. unsure of the other dimensions
 

Oshkosh-P

Observer
Are you referring about the Power Wagon? In any way this would be a very wide range of thickness? Usually it is much more difficult to measure the thickness as it is with the outer dimensions or are those numbers from a spec sheet?
 

marshal

Taco Enthusiast
Are you referring about the Power Wagon? In any way this would be a very wide range of thickness? Usually it is much more difficult to measure the thickness as it is with the outer dimensions or are those numbers from a spec sheet?
the current generation of Power Wagon Uses the same frame as the RAM 2500 and 3500 - the difference being that the 2500's and all have 5 link rear suspension with coils instead of leafs like on the 3500. those number is I provided were from a Chrysler spec sheet. I think where the difference comes from is that the RAM's use hydroformed frames where they take a single sheet of 7mm steel and then it is stretched and manipulated into the shape it is supposed to be, resultling in thinner areas. where as the previous generation Fseries trucks were all stamped C-channel frames and had a linear 6.6mm

I do not know specifications for the Alumiduty now that it has a hydroformed frame
 

Oshkosh-P

Observer
Alumiduty? :D

Like i said someone who oned one measured it with a caliper and ended up with 240x90x4.7 (probably around 4-4.5)mm in the mid section.

Maybe you can do the same thing with your truck for a direct comparision? Of course in both cases the problem remeins that the thickness might differ drastically because of the hydroforming process you just described.

This would be the same problem in case of the Sequoia or the LR Disco, as they all use hydroformed frames unlike a LR Defender or a Mercedes G who used two c-channel pieces welded together.

In case of the ram it was the same frame since around 2002 right?
 

marshal

Taco Enthusiast
I wouldn't say that the hydroforming thickness variance is a "problem". The current RAM frame was introduced in 2014.
 

Oshkosh-P

Observer
No not a problem in terms of constructing, only in terms of measuring the frame.

Ah ok, i thought the RAM was running on the same frame since it got boxed.
 

marshal

Taco Enthusiast
No not a problem in terms of constructing, only in terms of measuring the frame.

Ah ok, i thought the RAM was running on the same frame since it got boxed.
they updated it in 2014 when the 3500 gained the 15 ton tow rating
 

CrazyDrei

Space Monkey
just get a sequoia
Marshal,

Do not get a Sequoia, they are highly frowned upon by the overlanding community, probably just as much as my Suburban. All sarcasm aside it's an amazing vehicle, with as much usable room inside as a Tahoe, slightly more reliable but at double or triple the cost to fix. Independent suspension rides like a dream on dirt roads, washboard and typical places a modern overlander will go. And the best part, is that all the gear fits inside so you don't look like a christmass tree driving down the trail with tents, gas cans, awnings and green sacks hanging off the truck like a Jeep or a Tacoma.
 

Oshkosh-P

Observer
Uh one exotic big truck i forgot: What about the older Infinity QX 80? Should the probably boxed Nissan Titan frame not be up to the standart of a sequoia or Expedition?

Dont know about the axles and IFS tho...
 
Top