Automotive Forums  Where Car Enthusiasts Go to Discuss Cars Online

These three models are very popular in Sweden! I wanna get a used 1999-2001 model of one of these three, but which one? the Escalade is probably the most luxiourios one but the Tahoe I believe is the most popular one in the States and the Expedition known for reliabillity.
Anybody here with some experience?

thanks beforehand  Christian  

I'm pretty surprised that big, gas-guzzling SUVs like these are popular in Sweden.  Will you be buying one in Sweden?  If so, there's a chance that engine options and such will be different over there than they were here.  I can only speak to the U.S. versions.  

The Escalade in 1999 and 2000 was a barely restyled Tahoe.  It didn't offer any more power, and hardly any more luxury than a regular Tahoe, especially since the Tahoe could be optioned up with many luxury items to make it similar to an Escalade.  If you find an Escalade that costs more than a comparably equipped Tahoe, I see no reason to pay exta fro the Escalade.  

Unless, that is, you're looking at 1999s.  1999 was the final model year for that generation of Tahoes.  The 1999 Escalade introduced the "new" corporate GM truck chassis, so it's really equivalent to a 2000 Tahoe, not a 1999.  

By 2000 The Tahoe had inherited the new chassis.  

There were no Escalades built for the 2001 model year.  An all-new model was made available for 2002 with styling, luxury, and power options not available on the Tahoe, thus differentiating it more than before.  

I find these big GM SUVs pretty dissapointing in general.  They're supposedly pretty durable and certainly huge.  But they get very poor gas mileage, have really terrible interiors full of huge pieces of cheap, brittle plastic and wobbly buttons.  

The 1999-2001 Ford Expeditions aren't much better, but I think they offer a wee bit more refinement.  Just make sure you avoid the standard 4.6L V8 engine.  It makes a silly 215 HP, and turns the already-slow truck into a dog.  The 5.4 Liter V8 is much better.  

Any reason, in general, why you're interested in these huge, heavy, SUVs?  They were certainly popular in the U.S., but that doesn't mean that they were all that good.  Many people got tired of their size and inefficiency, and traded them in for smaller SUVs.  Still others began to realize that these expensive (when new) SUVs didn't have the interior quality and mechanical refinement that they expected for $40,000, and switched to SUVs offered by Toyota and Lexus.  

Any way, let me know if this was helpful, and if you have more questions.  

Hi!
Thanks for your reply, you seem to know quite a bit about these. My wife owns a dog-kennel you see and that involves lugging 3-4 large dogs to shows and exhibitions etc and Im a film-maker with lots of equipment. Rather then driving one of these ugly slow vans I was thinking of replacing my Landrover ( too small) for one of these models. However maybe youre right, maybe one should go for a newer model, 01-03 perhaps.
Ive had a Toyota Landcruiser and well surprisingly I didnt find it all that.
Apart from that I just have a soft spot for US cars they might not be all that refined but they certainly go and they look quite alright.
Somewhere I read lately that the Tahoe still was the most popular SUV in America.
What about Flexifuel etc, I believe all these models comes with this option, is that any good?
Also heard a lot of good about the new Explorers, here in Sweden it  got one of the best reviews ever, safe, quite ecomnomical and a lot of car for the price.  

Glad to see my post was valuable.  Here are some thoughts:

-I'm not sure what vans you've been driving, but if you think that an American SUV like a Tahoe or Expedition is going to be fast or powerful because of its huge V8 engine, think again.  the 1999-2000 GM SUVs were equipped with a rather lame 255 HP 5.7 Liter V8.  it had well over 300 lb/ft of torque, so it could certainly make some speed in a lightweight car.  But large GM SUVs weigh nearly 5000lb (what's that, maybe 2300kg?), and had 4 speed automatic transmissions that were geared very tall.  In other words, the engines struggled to propel those heavy cars with any sort of authority.  After 2001, the redesigned GM SUVs got much better engines.  The most common was a 285 HP 5.3L V8, which make the car acceptably quick in acceleration.  

-Flexifuel is something that's been offered for a few years here in the U.S.  I have no idea if Tahoes are offered with this feature in Sweden, or what year they were introduced.  Flexifuel means that the car is equipped to run on either regular petrol, or up to 85% ethanol fuel.  I don't know what the prices are for ethanol fuel are in Sweden, but here, E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) is about 3/4 the price of regular Petrol.  BUT, E85 only contains about 2/3 the combustable energy of regular petrol, so your gas mileage will be even worse.  But the advantage is reduced emissions.  

-If you've already owned a Toyota Landcruiser, and weren't impressed, I doubt you'll be any more impressed by a GM or Ford SUV. Recent Toyota SUVs with V8 power were just as fast, even though they had smaller V8 engines.  They were also much more reliable and more refined.  

-The Tahoe and Expedition might be one of the most popular vehicles in America, but that doesn't mean they're good cars.  Both represent the lowest commond denominator of automotive compromises.  They're cheaply made, with poorly performing engines, heavy chassis, poor fuel economy, and slow acceleration.  Add to that the fact that their ladder-frame chassis make their floor-height so high that interior space is far less than you'd expect, and I see no reason to resort to such a huge waste of space and resources, especially when fuel in Sweden costs...what is it, like $6 per gallon?

You mentioned Explorers.  If you're serious about buying one of these, let me know.  

Otherwise, I envy you because you're in a market with fascinating and stylish "sensible" cars and vans that are both economical and powerful. You have many spacious wagons and MPVs that can easily fit 4 big dogs.  Thos MPVs have potent turbodiesel engines and smart transmissions that are easily as fast as any old GM or Ford SUV, and far, far more economical.  

Hi again!

The Explorer, yes I borrowed a 2005 Explorer Limited and I must say if Ford ever have got it right , that was it. The review in Sweden about this mid-size SUV was even better then the Volvo XC90 would you believe and that says something and the more I think about this and the more I listen to you Im beginning to realize that these giant SUVs like Tahoe, Escalade and Expedition seems a waste really, not to speak of petrol prices, yes 6 dollars per gallon, joke isnt it.
The newer explorers actually comes with flexifuel etc but even with petrol and V6 or V8 theyre much more economical.
If you happen to know a bit more about the Explorer, please let me know! I very much appreciate your advice and points regarding these cars.

all the best  Christian  

The Explorer isn't a bad car.  But I wouldn't put it above an XC90.  The XC-90 is much more refined, with a better chassis, a smoother, mor powerful engine, and a vastly superior interior.  

When Ford redesigned the Explorer some years ago and incorporated an independednt rear suspension, they made huge leaps in mid-size SUV handling.  Explorers, while not performance cars, are rather nimble, and feel light on their feet.  Their interiors are generally well laid out.  But that's where the good-stuff ends, especially compared to an XC-90.  Stateside, the explorer has two engine options: a huge (for a V6) 4.0 Liter V6 with a rather lame 215 HP, or a gas-guzzling 4.6L 250-something HP V8.  Ford's close-ratio 5 speed automatic makes the most of these engines' rather low HP, but there's no getting around the fact that a V6 Explorer is slow, and a V8 explorer is acceptably quick, but far too thirsty.  

Explorer interiors are well designed, but, as with most American cars, show obvious signs of cost-cutting.  Cheap, hard plastic is everywhere, and Ford's continued insistance on dull, green night-time lighting is off-putting compared to the competition's sharp interior illumination.

Look, the fact is that big SUVs (I still consider the Explorer to be pretty big) have been popular in America because they carry a status, and because buyers assume that big=safe.  But SUVs like the explorer are, in fact, slow, cheaply made, too heavy for their interior space, and handle relatively poorly.  

I don't know what other SUVs are available in Sweden, but perhaps if you have me some other options, I could point you in the right direction.  

Right now, I'm thinking that an AWD VW passat with all-wheel-drive and a good diesel engine would give you better handling, better acceleration, MUCH better fuel economy, and more style/quality than an American SUV ever could.  

Hi!
Well ofcourse with my wife running a kennel and myself with photo-equipment I dont really want to fork out for a brand-new car so Im looking at a SUV second-hand, perhaps some 3-4 yrs old etc.
I must tell you about an experience I had only yesterday! I visited two showrooms ( second-hand )a Range-rover, 4 yrs old and an X5, 4 yrs old. Getting in to this 4yrs old Range-Rover was like entering a different world, the interiors, my god! in fact the whole car was like a dream, the panache and class is just on its own BUT so was the price-tag as well 30000 dollars for a four yrs old car! mind you here in Sweden just about everything is totally overpriced even food and newspapers, brand new Explorer 2007 out of showroom will set you back about 55000 dollars! in the US I believe its around 35K.
The X5, well you will probably disagree but I found it incredibly boring and clinical typically German actually, Just-business no chacracter BUT runs ofcourse perfect.
Your thoughts on the Range-rover would be much appreciated, not just on this 4-year old I tested but on the whole.

all the best  Christian  

Would you believe it?  The Range Rover shares many major chassis bones and the V8 engine with the BMW X5.  Rover was briefly owned by BMW when the Range Rover was designed.  Funny how two mechanically similar cars can feel so totally different.  I agree with you about the X5.  I've never been excited by them; I like the X3 even less.  But, as is always the case with BMW, when I finally drove an X3, I was naturally so impressed with its superior driving dynamics that the interior boredom and exterior weirdness were forgotten.  Still, I wouldn't buy one because they certainly are cold to the touch much of the time.  

The Range Rover certainly has one of the nicest interiors available in any car.  It's so expensive because it's a serious luxury car shaped like an SUV, and it cost something like $90K when new.  I'd guess a 2003 Rang Rover would cost the same here in the states.  The Land Rover/Range Rover brand has had a checkered reliability history, with cars like the previous generation Land Rover spending much of their lives in the shop.  But I haven't heard anything particularly terrible about the BMW-designed Range Rover, and I'd assume that, with BMW parts, it won't be nearly as troublesome as the old rovers  You might want to find some data, however, as I don't have access to anything right now.  

Of course, the Range Rover is still a huge, very heavy, gas-guzzling SUV.  But if you're gonna get something like that, I think it might as well actually be a good car, which it is.