Feature Flashback: Comparing the Chevy K5 Blazer to the Ford Bronco and AMC Jeepster Commando in 1971

On the occasion of our latest Big Test, wherein we take five jumbo-utes out into the desert scrub for some recreational off-roading, let’s also look back almost 47 years to a similar adventure that rounded up what were then the three leading progenitors of the yet to be named “sport-utility” class—the Chevy K5 Blazer, Ford Bronco, and AMC Jeepster Commando—to examine what we referred to then as “The Great RV Binge.” “Muscle Cars are out and Recreational Vehicles are in,” proclaimed author Chuck Koch. In support of this assertion he cited a 700 percent increase in sales of these off-road “RVs” since 1961, which he attributed to the fact that “it is simply no longer fun to drive in most metropolitan areas throughout the country.” His muscle car death rumor turned out to be highly exaggerated, and the SUV craze wouldn’t hit in earnest for another quarter century, but let’s have a look back at the state of this vehicular art circa 1971.

The Over/Under on Leaf Springs

Every one of these “RVs” sports a good ol’ fashioned live axle at both ends—a concept unimaginable today in anything short of the heaviest-duty pickups. Two of them also use primitive but sturdy ox-cart-proven leaf springs at both ends—an approach even the HD pickups have abandoned. Note that the Chevy Blazer’s front leaves are mounted above the axle, affording far greater ground clearance than in the Jeepster, which features “underslung” leaves mounted below the axle. From these shots we can also see that the Jeepster steers from the front, but the Blazer has a rear-steer setup with a drag link in front. Interestingly, although I can’t see it in this shot, Koch says the Jeepster uses an anti-roll bar in front—a rarity with leaf springs.

Bronco Bucks Trend with Front Coils

Ford’s Bronco fitted far more modern coil springs to the front of the Bronco, located by leading arms with a Panhard rod providing lateral location. Note that the front steering setup involves a steering damper—perhaps useful for preventing thumb sprains during rock crawling—and a steering link paralleling the Panhard rod.

Recreational Vehicles In/On RVs

Our modern-day evaluation crew stayed in hotels during their “adventure,” but our predecessors “roughed it” in the desert and enjoyed some two-wheeled off-roading, as well. “To go off-roading you need certain logistical support equipment. Sleeping bags, stoves, coolers, gasoline cans, and bikes—two from American Honda and one from Yamaha International. By the time we hat hit a few rocks and ruts, it became apparent that if you plan to take bikes, you better take bumper racks on which to mount them. We put the Hondas inside the Blazer, and then watched helplessly as the bikes quickly battered themselves and the vehicle every time any roughness was encountered.”

An All-Out Off-Roader—Chevy!?

“The Blazer was an all-out off-roader, equipped to go anywhere with skid plates, huge 10.00 x 16.5 six-ply tires, heavy-duty suspension and generator, power steering, disc brakes, auxiliary battery, a 3.73:1 axle, tow hooks, and free running front hubs. It cost more than the other cars [$5,560.10] and really must be considered apart from the others. The Blazer was so well adapted to its purpose that we spent most of the time in two-wheel high with an occasional stint into four-wheel high and a very short period while descending a rather precipitous trail when we shifted to four-wheel-low for safety. It was a most impressive experience.”

A Pioneer—the Bronco

“Perhaps best known among 4WD vehicles, for its record-setting performances in the Baja, is Ford’s Bronco. In its way, the Bronco is a pioneer among 4WD vehicles in that it introduced V-8 power to the species and our test car was equipped with the 302 2-bbl engine. The car also had free-running front hubs, limited slip front axle and a traction-lok rear axle. Other specialized off-road items included skid plates, auxiliary gas tank, a heavy-duty cooling package, and tube-type 6.50 x 16.6 ply rated tires. In test form, the Bronco priced out at $4,125.13.” For you young ’uns, the free-running hubs of which he speaks were a means of disconnecting the axles from the wheels when running in rear-drive mode. This prevented wear, but if you forgot to lock them before you hit the mud, it could be difficult to engage them afterward.

The Jeepster—No Rough Off-Roader!?

Here’s a historical anomaly: a Jeep that was not the de facto off-road champ. “Although the name Jeep is synonymous with four-wheel drive, the Jeepster Commando was more of a combination street/dirt car, not really suited for really rough off-roading. Its suspension is too soft and ground clearance not sufficient to surmount large obstacles. The Jeepster also lacked sufficient ground clearance and the protective skid plates (which resulted in a few dents to the gas tank). Of the three vehicles on the trip, the Jeepster was the only one to get stuck, although for a very short period. Again, insufficient ground clearance was the villain. The Jeepster’s price came to $4,659.56.”

Interior Issues

“Adequate passenger comfort is also important to the off-roader since rough country can lead to driver fatigue and here the Blazer won out. It bucket seats were very good, providing excellent lateral support and just enough padding to absorb blows to the rump. Legroom was sufficient and arm room adequate despite a huge steering wheel that stared you in the face. The Jeepster rates second, again on the strength of its comfortable bucket seat, but legroom was lacking and occasionally the car’s rocking motion would cause a leg to sharply strike the steering column. Bench seats, totally inadequate legroom and a generally awkward driving position relegate the Bronco to last place in comfort. Perhaps the wagon version improves on this situation—we would hope so—but some advancement is definitely needed in this area.”

Size Matters

“As great as the Blazer is, it does have its drawbacks and these concern the car’s dimensions. The wheelbase strikes us as being on the upper limits of what you’d want for serious off-roading. While the length is nice for traveling over ruts, tending to smooth out the ride, it can get you in trouble when encountering steep rock climbs. The front wheels will make it up with no problem, but the frame can get hung up since the rear wheels are so far back. On the other hand, a short wheelbase, like the Bronco’s 92 inches, will imply bounce over the rock without getting stuck. With a medium-length wheelbase, 101 inches, and a narrow width, 65.2 inches, the Jeepster was maneuvered fairly easily; but when in rocky country more often than not the suspension would bottom out, slamming the unprotected gas tank down on some awaiting boulder.”

Moar Power!

“Standard engine in the Blazer is the 307 V-8 but ours had the 350 two-barrel, which runs on low lead gas and produces 245 hp at 4,800 rpm. Next in performance was the Bronco, not set up a nicely as the Blazer but its power, 205 hp at 4,000 rpm, was enough to pull it through without too much trouble. Despite its rather calm personality, the Jeepster had a rugged OHV V-6 engine with a four-main-bearing crankshaft. This motor is extremely light, to save front suspension wear, yet very durable and fairly powerful; displacing 225 cubic inches and producing 160 hp at 4,200 rpm. While the engine tended to strain traversing steep inclines, we could not fault the 13.5 mpg fuel economy.”

Two Pedals are Better than Three

“In addition to its superior power, the Blazer was also equipped with an automatic transmission, a decided advantage over the Bronco. Now, don’t get us wrong. We like to shift gears as much as the next guy, but when you’re in deep sand, a manual shift is about the last thing you want and it is a shame that Ford has yet to offer an automatic in the Bronco, except in the expensive Baja version. The reason behind the automatic’s superiority is in its torque converter, which more than doubles the low range torque production of the engine. This allows the driver to more precisely control the amount of power delivered to the wheels, making it possible to turn them without losing traction and digging a hole in the sand. The only way to approximate this process with a manual shift is to slip the clutch and this, naturally, reduces clutch life and does not guarantee full traction on starting. With the automatic it’s just a matter of gently stepping on the accelerator and gradually applying pressure as you begin to move to multiply torque while the manual requires engaging the clutch, adding power, and finally hoping that those shovels you packed won’t have to be used.”

The Conclusions?

“In our little contest the Blazer wins bands down, with the Bronco a distant second. Both are decent off-road vehicles and while the Ford requires improvement in several important areas, Chevrolet seems to have the inside track on what it takes to achieve its purpose, with a smattering of style. The Jeepster needs to decide whether it wants to be a street automobile or an off-road machine. In its present, compromise configuration it is not really well suited to either. But no matter what we have said about these three particular vehicles, one inescapable fact remains: off-road driving is fun and exciting. If we came away with any definitive statement after our three-day desert bash it was, if you want to escape the pressure of the civilization, off-roading is the way to do it. No other means we know of allows you to reach the ‘way back’ country, free of smog and urban congestion, in the relative comfort of an automobile seat. Now we know why recreational vehicles are so popular, but we wonder how long it will last. After all, there’s only so much open land left.”

The post Feature Flashback: Comparing the Chevy K5 Blazer to the Ford Bronco and AMC Jeepster Commando in 1971 appeared first on Motor Trend.

Continue reading
92 Hits
0 Comments

Beasts of Burden: Ford Expedition vs. Chevrolet Tahoe vs. Dodge Durango vs. Toyota Sequoia vs. Nissan Armada

As Americans, we ask a lot out of our family vehicles. But none exerts itself harder than the full-size, three-row SUV. These seven- and eight-seat SUVs are tasked with shuttling family members to school, jobs, and sports practice during the week. On the weekend, these workhorses support our hobbies—from towing horses or boats on trailers to taking us down remote two-tracks to our favorite hiking or hunting spots. While we play, they work even harder.

Because of the honeydew lists we place upon these big family SUVs, manufacturers build ’em tough. They typically feature big V-8 engines, four-wheel drive, and full-size pickup-based platforms. Given how many jobs we expect these SUVs to do, our testing will ask more of ’em, too. On top of the usual criteria—you know, driving, riding, and handling, plus the ability to comfortably swallow at least seven passengers and their cargo, all without breaking the bank—we’re also going to ask our trucks to tow a trailer loaded with Honda Pioneer side-by-sides aalthough nd complete a rough-and-tumble off-road obstacle course.

Our invite criteria was pretty simple: three rows of seats inside, a minimum towing capacity of 7,000 pounds, four-wheel drive, and a $65,000 price cap, which, shockingly, is about the average transaction price for this segment.

The SUV most synonymous with this segment is the Chevrolet Tahoe and its extended-length twin, the Suburban. The undisputed segment best-seller, the Tahoe (and the virtually identical GMC Yukon) has been continually improved since the current generation made its debut three years ago. Our 2018 Chevrolet Tahoe 4WD LT started its life as a midlevel model but is loaded with options, including the Z71 Midnight Edition package, which adds off-road tires, an off-road-oriented suspension, a revised front bumper, black paint, and some decals. Our four-wheel-drive Tahoe is powered by the standard 5.3-liter V-8 paired with a six-speed automatic.

It’s tough living in the shadows, but Ford has done its best to ensure the new-for-2018 Expedition gets its chance at the spotlight. Our 2018 Ford Expedition XLT 4×4, like all new Expeditions, is built with lessons learned developing the best-selling, Truck of the Year–winning Ford F-150. Its sleek new sheetmetal is made of aluminum, and under the hood it sports a 3.5-liter twin-turbo V-6 paired with a 10-speed automatic transmission and optional all- or four-wheel drive—our tester is equipped with the latter.

Big full-size SUVs aren’t just an American thing; Toyota has been playing in the segment since 2000 with the Sequoia. Although largely unchanged since it made its debut in 2008, Toyota gave it a handful of updates for the new year. Our 2018 Toyota Sequoia TRD Sport 4×4 is the newest trim level, and it, like the rest of the lineup, gets LED headlights and some infotainment updates this year. Despite the Sequoia’s new nose, under the hood it soldiers on with a 5.7-liter V-8 paired with a six-speed auto and optional four-wheel drive.

Nissan has also been a player in the segment with the Armada. The second-gen Armada just arrived Stateside in 2016, but it has been hiding in plain sight on American streets since 2010 as the Infiniti QX56 (now called the QX80) and globally as the utilitarian Nissan Patrol off-roader. The U.S.-spec Armada is a hodgepodge of the two, sporting the latter’s sheetmetal and the former’s interior and engine, a beastly 5.6-liter V-8 mated to a seven-speed automatic. Our tester is a loaded 2018 Nissan Armada Platinum model equipped with optional four-wheel drive.

And that brings us to our final contender. A Big Test needs to be just that, so to round out our field, we invited an SUV that artfully straddles the line between full-size crossover and full-size SUV. Our 2018 Dodge Durango 4 R/T is just slightly bigger than many midsize crossovers and slightly smaller than these full-size SUVs. (Its wheelbase is actually significantly longer than the Tahoe’s, but it’s about 2 inches shorter in overall length). The only SUV not built in the old-school body-on-frame fashion, our Durango tester features the optional 5.7-liter V-8 sending power through an eight-speed automatic and a four-wheel-drive system borrowed from the Jeep Grand Cherokee.

Ride and Handling

With two weeks of extensive testing to tackle, we kicked things off with our real-world evaluation loop, which includes city streets, highway speed stretches, twisty roads, and sections of asphalt so bad that the county is continually attempting to repave it. Basically, it’s just about everything these SUVs would have to tackle in a given month in a tidy 21-mile stretch of coastal SoCal.

The differences between the five SUVs were readily apparent from the get-go. The Chevrolet Tahoe feels every bit as truckish as the Silverado platform it rides on. Although the Tahoe isn’t the only SUV here riding on a pickup platform (the Sequoia and Expedition ride on ladder frames based on those of the Tundra and the F-150), it’s the only one to use a pickup’s live rear axle, meaning both rear wheels share an axle, and thus any impact felt by one tire also affects the other. At least it swaps the pickup’s leaf springs for better riding coils.

Typically used in pickup trucks because their inherent strength outweighs the ride-quality penalty the design suffers, its appearance in the Tahoe is likely a cost-savings measure that negatively affects its ride and handling. The Tahoe’s rear-axle design makes the SUV feel stiff—though compliant—and busy while going down the road. The optional off-road tires don’t do the Chevy’s steering any favors through corners, either; they trade numb steering feel in favor of aggressive tread for off-road use.

If the Tahoe is on the harsh end of the ride spectrum, then the Nissan Armada is on the soft end. The Armada’s ride is mostly supple and floats over most impacts, only hobby horsing on harsher, repetitive bumps. The soft suspension does, however, mean that the Armada leans a ton through corners, sending unsecured cargo flying as the Nissan rounds bends.

The happiest SUV in corners by far is the Dodge Durango. The steering wheel in our sport-oriented R/T tester is direct and communicative, letting you know what the front tires are up to right up until you push things a little too far and the Dodge eases you back with a hint of gentle understeer. The Durango’s ride is pretty great, too. Although it feels stiffer than the Tahoe, it dispatches bumps in a one-and-done manner. “Definitely the sportiest in the group,” associate road test editor Erick Ayapana said. “Not surprising given it’s the smallest and most nimble of the bunch.”

The Ford falls somewhere between the Dodge and Chevy on the stiff end and Nissan on the soft end of the ride and handling spectrum. Equipped with an optional off-road-oriented package featuring an off-road tire, it suffers from far fewer ride and handling trade-offs than the Tahoe. “It has impressive body control,” associate editor Scott Evans said. “There’s surprisingly little body roll for such a large vehicle, and it rolls over onto the outside wheels smoothly every time.” The Expedition handles pretty well, too, with accurate but not talkative feedback from the wheel.

SUVs in this segment have come a long way on the ride and handling front—something we were all reminded of once we took our first turns in the Toyota Sequoia. The big Toyota has soldiered on without any significant changes for a decade, putting it far behind the rest of the pack in automotive development. The Sequoia’s steering requires constant corrections to stay centered in a straight line. It doesn’t get any better through turns, either. “Driving this reminds me how bad Toyota steering used to be; it’s way overboosted with extremely vague on-center feel,” news editor Alex Nishimoto said. Fortunately for the Toyota, it rides acceptably, though executive editor Mark Rechtin noted that there’s “a lot of side-to-side shudder with a lot of head toss over very minor bumps in the road.”

Performance

The performance formula for SUVs in this class used to be pretty simple: big, lazy V-8 paired with a four- or five-speed transmission. My how things have changed.

The biggest departure from yesteryear can be found under the hood of the new Ford Expedition. Ford ditched its 5.4-liter V-8 late in the previous-generation Expedition’s life in favor of its EcoBoost twin-turbo V-6, and the Blue Oval doubled down on its commitment by pairing the newest version of the EcoBoost V-6, now churning out 375 hp and 470 lb-ft of torque, with a 10-speed automatic transmission. The benefits of the new powertrain coupled with the weight savings of its aluminum body panels mean the Expedition was among the quickest in our test, accelerating from 0 to 60 mph in just 6.2 seconds and needing 14.8 seconds to get through the quarter mile at 91.7 mph. You’ll never miss a V-8 with this engine; it’s responsive and has a big, meaty torque curve. The gearbox is great, too, shifting almost imperceptibly in the background and always choosing the right gear.

The burly Nissan Armada is just a hair quicker than the Expedition. Powered by a Tennessee-built 5.6-liter V-8 making 390 hp and 384 lb-ft of torque and mated to a seven-speed automatic, the Armada ties the Expedition’s 0–60 run and quarter-mile time but is going slightly faster, at 94.0 mph, as it passes by the quarter-mile mark. Although most of us found the Armada’s throttle response to be overly aggressive, we all really liked the Nissan’s powertrain. “The engine is powerful, and it wants you to know it,” Evans said. “And the transmission is smooth and smart.”

The Dodge Durango also does pretty well for itself. Its 5.7-liter V-8 makes 360 hp and 390 lb-ft of torque and is connected to a quick-shifting eight-speed automatic. It’ll hustle from 0 to 60 mph in 6.5 seconds and through the quarter mile just behind the Nissan and Ford, in 14.9 seconds at 93.0 mph. “It’s definitely the sportiest of the group,” Ayapana said. Nishimoto agreed: “The engine pulls hard and sounds great. It gets really throaty when you wring it out, but it’s subdued when you’re driving it normally.”

For a vehicle that’s essentially 10 years old, the Toyota Sequoia’s powertrain is pretty nice. Its 381-hp, 401-lb-ft 5.7-liter V-8 gets the Toyota moving smoothly, if a bit slowly, but kick down a bit into the throttle to get the six-speed auto to downshift, and it’ll scoot. “It sounds good and pulls strong, but when accelerating you can feel the powertrain vibrating the steering wheel,” Ayapana said. Rechtin added: “The engine delivers sufficient power, but shifts take forever. Feels old.” Despite its age, the Toyota can run with the new guys; at the track it accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 6.8 seconds, and it passes through the quarter mile in 15.2 seconds at 91.6 mph.

Bringing up the rear is the Chevrolet Tahoe. Part of the blame can placed on the Midnight Edition’s all-terrain tires, but the Chevy’s powertrain is equally responsible. The Tahoe’s 5.3-liter V-8 makes 355 hp and 383 lb-ft of torque, the least amount of horsepower and torque in this field, and despite it being the second-lightest SUV here, its power-to-weight ratio is still the worst in the group. It’s not the engine’s fault; the six-speed under acceleration treats gears two through five like Trump treats Tiffany—it avoids them as much as possible. That means less than impressive test results: 0–60 mph comes in 7.9 seconds, and the quarter mile takes 16.2 seconds at 87.9 mph.

With about half of the buyers in this segment towing at least once per year, we also thought it was important to test how well they towed and hauled. We borrowed a trailer with two Honda Pioneer side-by-sides on it (for a total weight of 4,700 pounds) to see how well each handled a load. With the Expedition’s highest rated towing capacity—9,200 pounds—it’s perhaps unsurprising that it was our favorite hauler. It got up to highway speeds quicker than any other SUV and was the most responsive when passing. “It has tons of pulling power on the inclines, and the powertrain does a good job of engine braking on declines,” Ayapana said. The Armada was a close second choice in our towing tests.

Although most buyers will never take any of these SUVs off-road, their ability to tackle a light off-road course (and, well, a huge mud puddle) directly correlates to how well they’ll be able to handle snow, national park trails, dirt roads, and any other unforeseen obstacle. The Expedition and Tahoe, both with off-road packages and tires, hardly blinked in our tests. The Durango, too, was shockingly capable, so long as you mind its ground clearance and low-hanging front bumper. The Nissan and Toyota, on the other hand, were both disappointing. While the three Americans scrambled and crawled through everything we threw at ’em, the two Japanese SUVs struggled a ton, needing four-low in a couple spots. We suspect much of the blame can be placed on crappy street tires, but then again the Durango did just fine.

Efficiency

It’s easy to dismiss fuel economy as irrelevant in this segment, but given that California gas prices are back above three bucks a gallon and with an average fuel tank size of 25.26 gallons in this group, frequent fill-ups will be expensive. Sorting by their EPA combined fuel economy scores, the Ford Expedition, with its 17/22/19 mpg city/highway/combined rating, is the most efficient, followed closely by the Chevy Tahoe and Dodge Durango, with the Armada and Sequoia bringing up the rear. Never content with what The Man tells us, our Emissions Analytics team hooked up their test gear to see how efficient our five SUVs really are, using our Real MPG score. Turns out the feds were right, mostly. Second, fourth, and fifth don’t change, but the Ford and Dodge swap spots. The Durango’s 16.0/25.1/19.1 Real MPG score was the best in the test, and the turbocharged Expedition slipped to third with a 14.6/22.3/17.2 Real MPG score.

Cockpit/Cabin

Given these SUVs’ oft-used status as road-trip cruisers and their day-to-day shuttling duties, passenger comfort is a top consideration in our test. The average commute in the U.S. is 25.4 minutes one way, according to the Census Bureau, and each row of seats is bound to be in use, so we paid special attention to the cabins of each SUV.

There seems to be a difference in how to approach the cabin from each manufacturer. If you want a true luxury experience, you’d seemingly have to look no further than the Nissan Armada. With our Platinum tester featuring swanky burnt orange seats complete with tufted leather door panels, the Armada makes a great first impression. The seats are comfortable, and the first two rows are spacious. Things fall apart from there, though. “This is the most luxurious interior, even if it’s last-gen Infiniti,” Evans said. “Most people won’t know that, but they will notice the tiny black-and-white screen in the cluster, the busy, button-crazy center stack, and the small infotainment screen with dated graphics.” The infotainment system isn’t the only thing leaving us scratching our heads; the Armada’s third row is by far the smallest of the group. Anyone larger than a small child will have their head brushing the low ceiling, headrest digging into their spine, and knees in their chest.

The Tahoe keeps the Armada company when it comes to scant third-row space and comfort (though the Chevy’s is slightly more humane), but is a remarkably well-executed package otherwise. “The Tahoe’s interior is my favorite part about it,” Nishimoto said. “It looks modern, and the materials feel nice for this class. There are plenty of USB ports throughout the cabin and little storage areas, too.” The Chevy also features a snappy Apple CarPlay-friendly infotainment system and a Wi-Fi hot spot to keep everyone occupied on road trips.

The Dodge Durango is the smallest SUV here, but you wouldn’t necessarily know it inside. Due to some impressive packaging wizardry, the Durango’s three rows and cargo areas all sport middle-of-the-pack space while still having city-friendly dimensions. The second row is slightly smaller than the rest of the pack, but it still feels plenty roomy and comes with all the creature comforts you’d expect. The third row is accessed pretty easily and can fit adults in a pinch. We also really liked Dodge’s CarPlay-friendly infotainment system, which is the most feature-rich of the group. There’s still some room for improvement, though. The optional rear-seat entertainment package puts a Blu-ray player in the front center console, which eliminates any storage capability it once had, and the third row is just one of two here without any USB outlets to charge up devices.

Dodge has done an impressive job at keeping the Durango—which made its debut back in 2010—feeling fresh inside, but Toyota hasn’t done the same legwork. Getting into the Sequoia is like stepping into a time machine. It has velour cloth seats straight out of a 2005 Camry, the tacked-on infotainment system requires a reach clear across the cabin to operate, and there’s just a single USB port. Although “sorely lacking in features,” according to Nishimoto, the fundamentals are right. The cabin is downright massive, with plenty of room in all three rows. “You can fit grown-ass men in the third row,” Rechtin said. “The problem is there are no USB ports or anything for kids (or grown-ass men) to occupy themselves with, unless they want to play slug bug.”

The Ford Expedition seems to benefit greatly from being the newest SUV of the bunch—it’s the only one to effectively blend passenger comfort with interior features. The F-150-inspired cabin features huge storage cubbies, plenty of cupholders, and plenty of room for adults and their cargo in all three rows. Both the second and third rows tilt back and recline, and the Ford won praise for how easy it is to access the third row; the second row slides forward and out of the way with a light touch. This being a 21st century SUV, each row of seats gets plenty of power ports, USB outlets, and storage cubbies, and second-row passengers also have the ability to control infotainment functions from the back of the center console. And yes, there’s CarPlay integration.

Safety

There are two ways of looking at safety in this segment—crash test scores and active safety tech. On the former front, we have an incomplete set of data because three-fifths of our field hasn’t been tested yet by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) or the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The Tahoe has been tested by NHTSA, scoring four stars out of five overall, and the Durango is rated four stars overall by NHTSA and scored “Good,” the highest possible rating, in most IIHS tests.

On the active safety front, each vehicle here sports some sort of technological measure designed to make you a safer driver, such as blind-spot warning or rearview cameras. Aside from the Ford, whose sole set of supplemental safety tech was limited to blind-spot monitors and a backup camera on our base-level Expedition XLT (forward collision alert, adaptive cruise control, and lane keep assist are available on higher-spec models), most of the other systems functioned without having to think twice about them—a skydiver wouldn’t want to think twice about their parachute, would they? The two minor gripes we had were with the Armada and the Sequoia. The Nissan, which has the most comprehensive safety tech, would regularly slow down in heavy traffic, thanks to its Intelligent Distance Control software. But once the slow traffic cleared, the Armada’s smart-cruise system was scarily poky at getting the Nissan back up to speed. We’d have turned it off, but good luck navigating through the Nissan’s digital instrument cluster in traffic. As for the Toyota, well, its lane keep assist software doesn’t seem to do anything other than mindlessly beep at the driver, prompting all of us to shut it off. A turned-off safety system doesn’t do anybody a lick of good.

Value

Value’s a touchy subject. To some, it’s all about price. To others it’s about features or space. It’s hard to ignore the value proposition of our two cheapest entrants, the $55,535 Toyota Sequoia TRD Sport and the $56,555 Dodge Durango R/T. The former offers up the most interior space for the price, though you get little else for your money. The latter offers up a reasonably roomy interior, plus leather, adaptive cruise control, lane keep assist, a premium audio system, and Apple CarPlay and Android Auto compatibility.

Although more expensive than both the Dodge and Toyota, we found the $64,220 Ford Expedition XLT offered up the best balance of interior room and creature comforts.

Cost of Ownership

There are a lot of different ways of looking at cost of ownership, so I highly recommend checking out our Intellichoice-sourced chart for the full cost of ownership breakdown. If we focus solely on how much each vehicle will cost to run and maintain over five years, the Tahoe comes out ahead at $25,396 over 60 months, with the Expedition close behind at $25,636. The Toyota and Dodge barely lag behind the Chevy and Ford, but the Nissan handily brings up the rear, its high insurance, fuel, and repair costs giving it a $31,849 cost to owners over the same use period.

Conclusion

Ultimately, when it came down to deciding which SUV best balanced overall performance and road manners with packaging, fuel efficiency, and value, our individual rankings largely mirrored one another’s.

Last place goes to the Toyota Sequoia. We all liked how roomy its cabin was, but that’s about it. Everything about the Toyota feels old, from its road manners to its interior design and materials choices. It’s the cheapest truck here, but your money goes a lot further with the rest of the pack.

The Chevrolet and Nissan traded blows for third and fourth place, but ultimately the Tahoe hauled off with the bronze. The majority of us preferred the Armada’s powertrain, ride, and towing ability over the Tahoe’s, but the Chevy’s slightly more usable third row, better infotainment system, and impressive off-road performance—not to mention its higher relative fuel economy and lower cost of ownership—give it the edge. “Like in golf, it’s not about the good shots you hit,” Rechtin said. “It’s about the bad ones. And the Tahoe’s bad shots aren’t nearly as bad as the Armada’s.”

As Evans puts it, our second-place finisher punches way above its weight. (What’s with all the sports analogies?) Despite being the smallest vehicle here, the Dodge Durango still does everything nearly as well as our first-place finisher at a bargain price. The Durango feels both sporty and upscale, it’s efficient, and it’s safe, but its slightly smaller cabin and higher running costs means it just misses out on first place.

The Ford Expedition is a true jack-of-all-trades. It’ll do anything its owner could ever ask of it without breaking a sweat. It expertly balances city and highway drivability with off-road capability and segment-leading tow capacity. It has more room inside than a New York studio apartment, features a modern infotainment system, and is among the most efficient and cheapest SUVs here to run over the long term. Whether working or playing, the Ford Expedition is a game changer in the segment, and it’s our unanimous pick for winner of this Big Test.

5th: Toyota Sequoia TRD Sport 4WD Ten years old and feels every year of it. It’s big and cheap. If that’s all you need, you’ll be OK. But don’t go looking for more here.

4th: Nissan Armada Platinum 4WD Despite its comfortable ride and prompt powertrain, its useless third row, maddeningly complex electronic controls, and high cost of ownership keep it off the podium.

3rd: Chevrolet Tahoe LT 4WD Z71 The best-seller gets by, thanks to its slightly more usable third row, better fuel economy, stronger off-road performance (thanks, tires!), and modern infotainment system.

2nd: Dodge Durango 4 R/T The Durango is getting on in years, but Dodge has kept it fresh. You’ll lack some interior space but gain a great driving experience, nice materials, and a cheap sticker price.

1st: Ford Expedition XLT FX4 4×4 Spacious, smart, comfortable, quick, and efficient, the Expedition does it all well. On-road, off-road, towing, you name it—this is the best in class.

2018 Ford Expedition XLT (4×4) FX4 2018 Dodge Durango 4 R/T 2018 Chevrolet Tahoe (LT 4WD) Z71
DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front-engine, 4WD Front-engine, 4WD Front-engine, 4WD
ENGINE TYPE Twin-turbo 60-deg V-6, alum block/heads 90-deg V-8, iron block/alum heads 90-deg V-8, alum block/heads
VALVETRAIN DOHC, 4 valves/cyl OHV, 2 valves/cyl OHV, 2 valves/cyl
DISPLACEMENT 213.4 cu in/3,497 cc 345.0 cu in/5,654 cc 325.2 cu in/5,328 cc
COMPRESSION RATIO 10.0:1 10.5:1 11.0:1
POWER (SAE NET) 375 hp @ 5,000 rpm 360 hp @ 5,150 rpm* 355 hp @ 5,600 rpm*
TORQUE (SAE NET) 470 lb-ft @ 2,250 rpm 390 lb-ft @ 4,250 rpm* 383 lb-ft @ 4,100 rpm*
REDLINE 6,200 rpm 5,900 rpm None displayed (5,800 rpm max eng speed)
WEIGHT TO POWER 15.4 lb/hp 15.1 lb/hp 16.1 lb/hp
TRANSMISSION 10-speed automatic 8-speed automatic 6-speed automatic
AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE/LOW RATIO 3.73:1/2.39:1/2.64:1 3.09:1/2.07:1/2.72:1 3.42:1/2.29:1/4.02:1
SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; live axle, coil springs, anti-roll bar
STEERING RATIO 20.5:1 16.7:1 17.3:1
TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 3.8 3.2 3.4
BRAKES, F; R 13.8-in vented disc; 13.2-in vented disc, ABS 13.8-in vented disc; 13.0-in vented, disc, ABS 13.0-in vented disc; 13.6-in vented disc, ABS
WHEELS 8.5 x 18-in cast aluminum 8.0 x 20-in cast aluminum 8.5 x 18-in cast aluminum
TIRES 275/65R18 116T (M+S) Michelin Primacy XC 265/50R20 107T (M+S) Bridgestone Ecopia H/L 422 Plus 265/65R18 114S (M+S) Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac
DIMENSIONS
WHEELBASE 122.5 in 119.8 in 116.0 in
TRACK, F/R 67.6/67.2 in 63.9/64.1 in 68.7/68.7 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 210.0 x 79.9 x 76.4 in 201.2 x 75.8 x 72.7 in 203.9 x 80.5 x 74.4 in
GROUND CLEARANCE 9.8 in 8.1 in 7.9 in
APPRCH/DEPART ANGLE 23.3/21.9 deg 16.3/21.5 deg 15.5/23.2 deg
TURNING CIRCLE 41.0 ft 41.0 ft 39.0 ft
CURB WEIGHT 5,763 lb 5,433 lb 5,706 lb
WEIGHT DIST, F/R 50/50% 52/48% 52/48%
TOWING CAPACITY 9,200 lb 7,200 lb 8,400 lb
SEATING CAPACITY 8 6 8
HEADROOM, F/M/R 42.0/40.0/37.3 in 39.9/39.8/37.8 in 42.8/38.7/38.1 in
LEGROOM, F/M/R 43.9/41.5/36.1 in 40.3/38.6/31.5 in 45.3/39.0/24.8 in
SHOULDER ROOM, F/M/R 64.9/64.8/64.2 in 58.5/50.4/50.4 in 64.8/65.1/62.6 in
CARGO VOL, BEH 1ST/2ND/3RD 104.6/57.5/19.3 cu ft 84.5/47.7/17.2 cu ft 94.7/51.7/15.3 cu ft
TEST DATA
ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30 2.2 sec 2.1 sec 2.9 sec
0-40 3.2 3.3 4.3
0-50 4.5 4.6 6.0
0-60 6.2 6.5 7.9
0-70 8.1 8.5 10.6
0-80 10.7 10.9 13.5
0-90 14.1 13.9 17.0
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 3.3 3.6 4.0
QUARTER MILE 14.8 sec @ 91.7 mph 14.9 sec @ 93.0 mph 16.2 sec @ 87.9 mph
0-60 (TOWING) 12.2 13.5 15.0
PASSING, 45-65 MPH (TOWING) 7.7 8.2 9.3
QUARTER MILE (TOWING) 18.7 sec @ 73.3 mph 19.3 sec @ 71.7 mph 20.4 sec @ 68.0 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 129 ft 127 ft 137 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.76 g (avg) 0.80 g (avg) 0.74 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 27.6 sec @ 0.62 g (avg) 27.4 sec @ 0.64 g (avg) 28.1 sec @ 0.61 g (avg)
TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1,600 rpm 1,400 rpm 1,500 rpm
CONSUMER INFO
BASE PRICE $55,900 $47,390 $56,875
PRICE AS TESTED $64,220 $56,555 $65,510
STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/Yes Yes/Yes Yes/Yes
AIRBAGS 6: Dual front, front side, f/r curtain 7: Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, driver knee 7: Dual front, front side, inboard front head, f/r curtain
BASIC WARRANTY 3 yrs/36,000 miles 3 yrs/36,000 miles 3 yrs/36,000 miles
POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 5 yrs/60,000 miles 5 yrs/60,000 miles 5 yrs/60,000 miles
ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 5 yrs/60,000 miles 5 yrs/60,000 miles 5 yrs/60,000 miles
FUEL CAPACITY 23.3 gal 24.6 gal 26.0 gal
REAL MPG, CITY/HWY/COMB 14.6/22.3/17.2 mpg 16.0/25.1/19.1 mpg 16.3/22.4/18.6 mpg
EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON 17/22/19 mpg 14/22/17 mpg 16/22/18 mpg
ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 198/153 kW-hrs/100 miles 241/153 kW-hrs/100 miles 211/153 kW-hrs/100 miles
CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 1.02 lb/mile 1.16 lb/mile 1.06 lb/mile
RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded regular Unleaded mid-grade Unleaded regular
2018 Nissan Armada Platinum 4WD 2018 Toyota Sequoia TRD Sport (4WD)
DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front-engine, 4WD Front-engine, 4WD
ENGINE TYPE 90-deg V-8, alum block/heads 90-deg V-8, alum block/heads
VALVETRAIN DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl
DISPLACEMENT 338.8 cu in/5,552 cc 345.6 cu in/5,663 cc
COMPRESSION RATIO 11.2:1 10.2:1
POWER (SAE NET) 390 hp @ 5,800 rpm 381 hp @ 5,600 rpm
TORQUE (SAE NET) 394 lb-ft @ 4,000 rpm 401 lb-ft @ 3,600 rpm
REDLINE 6,200 rpm 5,900 rpm
WEIGHT TO POWER 15.2 lb/hp 15.6 lb/hp
TRANSMISSION 7-speed automatic 6-speed automatic
AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE/LOW RATIO 2.94:1/2.28:1/2.77:1 3.91:1/2.30:1/2.62:1
SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar
STEERING RATIO 19.6:1 17.3:1
TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 3.6 3.7
BRAKES, F; R 13.8-in vented disc; 13.8-in vented disc, ABS 13.9-in vented disc; 13.6-in vented disc, ABS
WHEELS 8.0 x 20-in cast aluminum 8.0 x 20-in cast aluminum
TIRES 275/60R20 114H (M+S) Bridgestone Dueler H/T 684 II 275/55R20 111H (M+S) Dunlop SP Sport 5000M
DIMENSIONS
WHEELBASE 121.1 in 122.0 in
TRACK, F/R 67.5/67.9 in 67.9/69.1 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 208.9 x 79.9 x 75.8 in 205.1 x 79.9 x 74.6 in
GROUND CLEARANCE 9.2 in 10.0 in
APPRCH/DEPART ANGLE 20.9/22.3 deg 27.0/21.0 deg
TURNING CIRCLE 41.3 ft 38.1 ft
CURB WEIGHT 5,913 lb 5,935 lb
WEIGHT DIST, F/R 52/48% 51/49%
TOWING CAPACITY 8,500 lb 7,100 lb
SEATING CAPACITY 8 7
HEADROOM, F/M/R 39.8/40.0/36.4 in 38.3/39.25/38.5 in
LEGROOM, F/M/R 41.9/41.0/28.4 in 42.5/40.4/35.3 in
SHOULDER ROOM, F/M/R 63.8/63.4/60.5 in 66.4/65.6/65.7 in
CARGO VOL, BEH 1ST/2ND/3RD 95.4/49.9/16.5 cu ft 126.4/66.6/18.9 cu ft
TEST DATA
ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30 2.2 sec 2.3 sec
0-40 3.2 3.6
0-50 4.6 5.1
0-60 6.2 6.8
0-70 8.4 9.0
0-80 10.8 11.6
0-90 13.4 14.6
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 3.4 3.4
QUARTER MILE 14.8 sec @ 94.0 mph 15.2 sec @ 91.6 mph
0-60 (TOWING) 12.1 13.3
PASSING, 45-65 MPH (TOWING) 7.5 7.6
QUARTER MILE (TOWING) 19.0 sec @ 71.8 mph 19.5 sec @ 71.2 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 123 ft 122 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.73 g (avg) 0.78 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 28.0 sec @ 0.61 g (avg) 27.3 sec @ 0.65 g (avg)
TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1,400 rpm 1,600 rpm
CONSUMER INFO
BASE PRICE $63,385 $55,535
PRICE AS TESTED $63,695 $55,535
STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/Yes Yes/Yes
AIRBAGS 6: Dual front, front side, f/r curtain 8: Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, front knee
BASIC WARRANTY 3 yrs/36,000 miles 3 yrs/36,000 miles
POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 5 yrs/60,000 miles 5 yrs/60,000 miles
ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 5 yrs/60,000 miles 2 yrs/Unlimited miles
FUEL CAPACITY 26.0 gal 26.4 gal
REAL MPG, CITY/HWY/COMB 14.7/20.8/16.9 mpg 14.4/19.8/16.5 mpg
EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON 13/18/15 mpg 13/17/14 mpg
ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 259/187 kW-hrs/100 miles 259/198 kW-hrs/100 miles
CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 1.31 lb/mile 1.33 lb/mile
RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded regular Unleaded regular

The post Beasts of Burden: Ford Expedition vs. Chevrolet Tahoe vs. Dodge Durango vs. Toyota Sequoia vs. Nissan Armada appeared first on Motor Trend.

Continue reading
97 Hits
0 Comments

NHTSA May Drastically Reduce Fuel Economy Requirements

In 2011, automakers reached an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the California Air Resources Board to steadily improve average fuel economy between 2017 and 2025. Now, seven years later, it looks like the NHTSA is considering reducing those requirements.

Automotive News reports that the NHTSA is evaluating a variety of options, one of which would only require automakers to achieve a 35.7-mpg fleet average by 2026, about 11 mpg less than the current requirement of 46.6 mpg. Other options being evaluated would change the rules less drastically.

Importantly, though, the testing used to calculate corporate average fuel economy doesn’t necessarily reflect real-world driving. For example, 50 mpg by CAFE standards is actually closer to 36 mpg.

Unfortunately for automakers, trucks and SUVs are more popular than they’ve ever been. Meanwhile, diesels have fallen out of favor with U.S. customers, and plug-in hybrid sales have yet to really take off.

But no matter what the NHTSA decides, don’t expect CARB to support any changes. “It’s clear that in order to stay competitive globally, the U.S. auto industry needs to keep pace with the rest of the world. That’s where California is moving,” a CARB spokesperson told Automotive News. “It is unwise for the federal government to set the clock of automotive technology back a decade.”

Source: Automotive News

The post NHTSA May Drastically Reduce Fuel Economy Requirements appeared first on Motor Trend.

Continue reading
24 Hits
0 Comments

2017 Kia Niro Long-Term Update 1: Ecobox or Econobox?

Judgment day has arrived for our Kia Niro. Not long after the hybrid wagon quietly rolled into our garage, we put it through our battery of tests measuring acceleration, handling, fuel economy, and other key areas of performance.

Earlier, we tested a Kia Niro LX hitting 60 mph in 8.7 seconds. More than 110 pounds heavier, thanks to additional content, our long-term Touring managed the run in 9.6 seconds. That’s about on par with a 2016 Toyota Prius Four Touring, which reached 60 mph in 9.7 seconds. Meanwhile, a Hyundai Ioniq Limited slid to 60 in 9.4 seconds.

The Niro traveled a quarter mile in 17.2 seconds at 79.0 mph, besting the Prius’ 17.4 seconds at 77.6 mph. In the figure eight, the Niro clocked 27.3 seconds at an average of 0.62 g, ahead of the Prius at 27.8 seconds at 0.61 g.

On the road, the Niro feels unrefined in some ways, but it’s not for a lack of power. The six-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission lurches abruptly at very low speeds, making for some uncomfortable moments in the parking lot. Noise levels are as expected in a subcompact mainstream car, though the ride can get a little wobbly at high speeds.

“If ride comfort is more your priority, skip the Touring trim and get a loaded EX with the smaller 16-inch wheels [instead of 18-inch wheels],” noted associate online editor Stefan Ogbac. Fortunately, the well-equipped interior makes up for most signs of coarseness on our Touring model. But more on that later.

So our Niro Touring is slow and slightly uncouth. But it’s extremely efficient, as verified by our Real MPG tests. The Niro achieved 59.6/44.5/51.7 mpg city/highway/combined, well ahead of the EPA’s rating of 46/40/43 mpg. Predictably, it’s a bit behind the Prius Four Touring’s 56.4/56.2/56.3 Real MPG rating.

Drivers should enjoy fewer trips to the gas station with the Niro. Kia lists the Niro’s range at a commendable 511 miles. Other trims claim even greater ranges between 583 and 595 miles. During my turns behind the wheel of the Niro, I’ve witnessed the range readout after a fill-up indicating anywhere from 478 to 539 miles.

Read more about our 2017 Kia Niro:

Long-Term Arrival: Finding Niro

2017 Kia Niro EcoHybrid Touring
BASE PRICE $30,545
PRICE AS TESTED $32,575
VEHICLE LAYOUT Front-engine, FWD, 5-pass, 4-door hatchback
ENGINE 1.6L/104-hp/109-lb-ft plus 43-hp/125-lb-ft front electric motor; 139-hp/195-lb-ft combined
TRANSMISSION 6-speed twin-clutch auto
CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 3,237 lb (60/40%)
WHEELBASE 106.3 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 171.5 x 71.1 x 60.8 in
0-60 MPH 9.6 sec
QUARTER MILE 17.2 sec @ 79.0 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 123 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.86 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 27.3 sec @ 0.62 g (avg)
REAL MPG, CITY/HWY/COMB 59.6/44.5/51.7 mpg
EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON 46/40/43 mpg
ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 73/84 kW-hrs/100 miles
CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 0.45 lb/mile

The post 2017 Kia Niro Long-Term Update 1: Ecobox or Econobox? appeared first on Motor Trend.

Continue reading
81 Hits
0 Comments

Key to Tesla Model 3 Production Currently Sits in Germany

It’s no secret that Tesla is behind on Model 3 production. Tesla even admits that “bottlenecks” are a large part of why it lost so much money last year. But that could soon change now that a key piece of manufacturing equipment is ready to go. The only problem is, it’s currently on the wrong side of the Atlantic ocean.

Automotive News reports that Tesla has designed and built an automated battery module assembly line that’s expected to significantly speed up production. Unfortunately for the California-based automaker, the equipment still needs to get from Germany to its U.S. battery factory in Nevada.

“That’s got to be disassembled, brought over to the gigafactory and reassembled and then brought into operation at the gigafactory,” Tesla CEO Elon Musk said on a conference call earlier this week. “It’s not a question of whether it works or not. It’s just a question of disassembly, transport, and reassembly.”

The problem is, Tesla also recently told investors that by the end of next month, it expects to more than double Model 3 production. To avoid missing its goal of building 2,500 Model 3s per week, Tesla has only a few weeks to get its automated assembly line across the Atlantic.

Without the new assembly line, it’s hard to see how Tesla could build enough batteries to meet its production goals. But when that eventually does happen, expect to see a lot more Tesla Model 3s on the road.

Source: Automotive News

The post Key to Tesla Model 3 Production Currently Sits in Germany appeared first on Motor Trend.

Continue reading
52 Hits
0 Comments

Free Review:

If you are looking to increase your insurance coverage on your vehicle, the insurance company may require you to obtain a certified auto appraisal.   If you have a custom car, truck or motorcycle, the insurance company won't pay you more than book value. Get a stated value appraisal to cover money spent customizing your vehicle.  Have a collector or exotic vehicle?  Book value does not justify the vehicle value  In case you are in an accident, have a certified auto appraisal done.  Contact us today for a Free Evaluation!

aston martin2 dbs carbon black pinnacle auto appraiser appraisal dimished value

Pinnacle Auto Appraisers Will Professionally Evaluate Your Vehicle!

FLEET VEHICLES:

Pinnacle Auto Appraisers prides itself on quickly handling large amounts of vehicles. We routinely handle fleets for: vans, trucking, limousine, shuttle, buses, SUV, corporate, taxi, dealership, clubs, rental, and delivery companies. We handle large national chains, small family businesses, and car club appraisal(s).

fleet vehicle truck car van bus suv limo limousine rig shuttle pinnacle auto appraiser appraisal dimished value

Pinnacle Auto Appraisers Offers Quality Fleet Appraisals!

Accident:

If you were involved in an accident and the insurance company deemed your vehicle a total loss, we can help.  If you don't agree with the insurance company's offer, you have the right to hire an independent certified appraiser to determine the actual cash value of your vehicle.  Our certified appraiser will go to the vehicle location, conduct the inspection and complete a certified total loss appraisal on your vehicle.  Total loss claims do require a negotiation phase which we will take care of for you at no additional charge!

aston martin3 dbs carbon black pinnacle auto appraiser appraisal dimished value

Let Pinnacle Auto Appraisers Help After A Crash!

CAR CLUBS & REPAIR SHOPS:

Our Appraisers are repair shop and car club fanatics! We enjoy when local and national clubs invite us out to their local gatherings. We recently offered an appraisal discount that lasted all month. We love everything that has an engine and drives on the road. We do our best to help everyone in need of an appraisal!

car club corvette sport tuner custom pinnacle auto appraiser appraisal dimished value

Pinnacle Auto Appraisers - We Value Car Clubs and Repair Shops!