C&D BS: Escalade places 4th out of 5

[Northstar]

So I got my C&D today, and the Escalade was in a comparo vs. the Navigator (5th place), Infiniti QX56 (3rd!?! WTF?), Audi Q7 (2nd), and GL450 (1st).

Now, it's not that I don't agree with some of the scoring (Escalade got low marks for the second and third row), but some of them are pretty much BS. Somehow it got a lower score on ergonomics than the Audi and MB (the MB tons of tiny buttons, and Audi locates their HVAC units in the worst place ever, as well as having the MMI crap in a terrible place if you're trying to drive), and it's interior design was also scored lower than each. Maybe it's just me, but it looks a lot better than either, IMO (I feel the Audi's is pretty ugly looking and the MB looks too VW). It also got an 8 on fit and finish while the MB got 10, and you can see from the picture than the MB has a sizeable gap between the stack and console?! One final thing is that it got a 6 on features/amenitites (out of 10).

Finally, they say that the Escalade has all sorts of flash, and in the verdict they say "Famous for being Famous" but somehow it receives a 13 out of 25 in the "gotta-have-it factor"? It seems that the gotta-have-it factor somehow never seems to help GM cars, other than the Vette.

And the dumbest thing they did - complained that the interior color caused too much glare from the sun (WTF?).

No one in their right mind would pick the QX over the Escalade. Nothing pissed me off more than the Escalade coming in behind the QX.

[FAPTurbo]

Sucky review. Yes.

Will this cause sales to drop? Unlikely.

[Flybrian]

That just shows their lack of credibility.

Complaints & Drivel can have the bloated, archaic QX56 and deal with 9mpg averages, 20 year-old Pathfinder styling cues, laugable build quality, vomitastic styling, and a curb weight that makes Star Jones look anorexic.

Also, the Q7 doesn't belong in this comparison any more than a LeSabre or a Kenmore dryer does, more proof Complaints & Drivel is clueless.

[ocnblu]

Because of the complicated and most likely problematic European electronics, it would have behooved them to place the Escalade first. I don't remember the last time I've even seen a laughably crappy QX56. The Q7 reminds me of an ocean liner. I don't think it will sell based on looks. The Mercedes G-class has gone from old-money cool and class to upper-end Wal-Mart with this new model.

Escalade is a better vehicle.

[Variance]

[Devil's advocate]

You know, it isn't out of the question that the QX has improved in quality.

Is it a better vehicle than the Escalade? I don't know; I've never driven either one. Personally, I don't really dislike the QX's styling (aside from that questionable humpback roof). It's tons better than the LOL-inducing Navigator's.

[/Devil's advocate]

[Northstar]

[Devil's advocate]

You know, it isn't out of the question that the QX has improved in quality.

Is it a better vehicle than the Escalade? I don't know; I've never driven either one. Personally, I don't really dislike the QX's styling (aside from that questionable humpback roof). It's tons better than the LOL-inducing Navigator's.

[/Devil's advocate]

188425[/snapback]

Possible, but then that would put it at just above the Armada (if it has improved in quality since I sat in one, since it was basially an Armada with plood), and we all know that the Armada is no where's near as nice as an Escalade.

[balthazar]

Of course C&D preferred the M-B in many areas; they drive one at least every 8 weeks!!

[Guest YellowJacket894]

That review is unfit and unfair. I felt very disappointed when I read that comparo at a newsstand.

The Escalade is way more competitive than the QX56. Way more competitive. I mean, at least the interior of the new Escalade has differention from the rest of the GMT-900 Gang. The QX has none -- it even keeps the same Fisher-Price dash from the Armada.

At worse, the truck deserved at least an honest third place.

A thought: when Motor Trend placed it against the Range Rover Supercharged , the Escalade placed first in almost every catagory, including features. Just goes to show someone at C&D got a nice check from "someone else" at the end of the test.

[FAPTurbo]

I think Mercedes may have promised them a couple "Long Term" tests in a CLS or something...

If it came 3rd, I wouldn't have too much of a problem, but behind the QX45?! That's unfair.

I wonder if the "Q" in QX45 stands for Quasimodo?... Wouldn't be that much of a stretch considering the "hump" on it's back...

[thegriffon]

The Q7 doesn't have much of a third row, and the GL is too plain. Tha Navigator is butt ugly now, and the QX56 too big, too ugly and too thirsty. I notice they didn't even bother with the LX470, since not even Toyota can shift them.

[turbo200]

Having not read the comparison yet, I only wanted to comment on one thing you said about ergonomics, Northie. Ergonomics are not just the ease of use of controls, but also the placement of everything, including the driver's relation to all the important points of the car, the perspective from behind the wheel, the distance of the driver from all the controls, the view over the hood....etc etc. It's not simply as easy as saying there are less complex buttons in this one over that one.

That said.....this article seems like one of those things that make you go hmmm.....I haven't read it yet, though a comparison like this, and one even including the Acadia and Enclave seemed inevitable.....crossovers that are lighter and tighter are competing for the same space as the Escalade is now. No need to worry though, the Escalade is still cooler looking than both these...though the Q7 looks way cool

[The O.C.]

Having not read the comparison yet, I only wanted to comment on one thing you said about ergonomics, Northie. Ergonomics are not just the ease of use of controls, but also the placement of everything, including the driver's relation to all the important points of the car, the perspective from behind the wheel, the distance of the driver from all the controls, the view over the hood....etc etc. It's not simply as easy as saying there are less complex buttons in this one over that one.

That said.....this article seems like one of those things that make you go hmmm.....I haven't read it yet, though a comparison like this, and one even including the Acadia and Enclave seemed inevitable.....crossovers that are lighter and tighter are competing for the same space as the Escalade is now. No need to worry though, the Escalade is still cooler looking than both these...though the Q7 looks way cool

188583[/snapback]

I'd be inclined to believe the rankings with the exception of the QX.

Then again, I've never driven a QX so I can't really comment.

I can see Navigator coming ahead because of the IRS, better 3rd row seating, etc.

And the Q7 and M-Benz DO seem to be class-act vehicles.

However, MY personal choices are more Escalade and GL-Class. I like both of those the best. Following that would be Q7....Navigator....THEN QX.

[pow]

The results were probably so because C&D's report card doesn't put much emphasis on styling or fit and finish, two areas where the Escalade handily beats the QX.

And it's Car and Driver (or Sports Car Illustrated..), so they usually pick the one that drives most like a car.

Edit: Here's basically the CliffsNotes of the comparo...

Navigator -- weak performance, poor brakes, not enough grip, noisy, good outward visibility, roomy

Escalade -- good acceleration, noisy, nervous steering, cramped 2nd/3rd row, cool features, structure quivers, expensive

QX56 -- roomy, dowdy looks, most car-like of truck-based utes, low-price, quiet, smooth

Q7 -- concept-like styling, nice interior, cramped 3rd row, most sporting, too low, too loud, good handling

GL450 -- car-like, luxury, quickest, most efficient, squishy brakes, roomy, good ride

Edited September 4, 2006 by empowah

[Northstar]

The results were probably so because C&D's report card doesn't put much emphasis on styling or fit and finish, two areas where the Escalade handily beats the QX.

Escalade -- good acceleration, noisy, nervous steering, cramped 2nd/3rd row, cool features, structure quivers, expensive

188841[/snapback]

I don't have the review in front of me, but I don't remember them giving the Escalade high marks in either styling or fit and finish. I believe a 7 for styling and 6 for f and f.

I never got the chance to drive an Escalade when I worked at the dealership, but the Tahoes and Suburbans certainly didn't have nervous steering.

They say it has a lot of cool features but I think it got a 6/10 for features amenities? WTF?

[GMman]

The only thing I agreed with on that comparison was the comments on the Lincoln's instrument panel. Talk about WTF?... It was just weird.

I swear, if you put a mercedes badge on that Escalade, it would of won.

The little infinity ranking.....they lose credibility everytime they do that sort of thing. Pretty soon they'll be right along side of consumer reports...

[pow]

I don't have the review in front of me, but I don't remember them giving the Escalade high marks in either styling or fit and finish. I believe a 7 for styling and 6 for f and f.

I never got the chance to drive an Escalade when I worked at the dealership, but the Tahoes and Suburbans certainly didn't have nervous steering.

They say it has a lot of cool features but I think it got a 6/10 for features amenities? WTF?

188867[/snapback]

Styling was 7/8 (interior/exterior) for the Escalade, and 5/5 for the QX56. Escalade f-and-f was 8, while the QX56's was a 7.

The Escalade's noise, ride, and steering had something to do with the 22-inchers, according to C&D.

Re: "cool features", actually they were commenting on the rearview TV. My bad. The features/amenities category is based on an objective feature count, which I assume includes stuff like side assist, radar cruise control, infared glass, power steering wheel, and so on.

[caddycruiser]

Not sure if any of you have touched on it yet, but a HUGE reason why the Escalade ended up so low (besides the comments already discussed above) is the inefficient layout and lack of space. Moreso, the fact that it's still the ONLY one that has an unlatch & remove 3rd row, on top of the fact that the 2nd row is a little cramped, the 3rd row is unfit for humans, and there's no cargo space with all the seats up--something that, although not a problem for every buyer, is a bit more than annoying for a nearly $70k truck.

I think the rankings were actually pretty accurate, even if the QX56 being in the middle threw me a bit--they have apparently, improved the "unseen" quality (squeaks, rattles, loose stuff) greatly since intro, so it actually makes some sense. The Navi's issues are credible, and it does represent a serious WTF moment in a lot of regards, the Q7 is the most carlike and almost a bit too much so in some respects, and the MB, besides a few bland outside lines, is a TERRIFIC truck.

The Escalade wasn't totally bashed, but when compared back to back with competitors for a few days in a row, that's just the way the cards fall sometimes...

[Flybrian]

The thing ignored with the 3rd row issues is the availability of a real 3-row vehicle in the form of the ESV, XL, or Suburban. I feel this point is very much ignored in these reviews.

Anyhow, to elaborate on how mysterious the QX56's placement is, the thing has absolutely no road presence. It looks very cheap going down the highway, almost as cheap as the Armada.

[The O.C.]

The thing ignored with the 3rd row issues is the availability of a real 3-row vehicle in the form of the ESV, XL, or Suburban. I feel this point is very much ignored in these reviews.

Anyhow, to elaborate on how mysterious the QX56's placement is, the thing has absolutely no road presence. It looks very cheap going down the highway, almost as cheap as the Armada.

189174[/snapback]

But the others can give you reasonable 3rd-row accomodations with easier stowing in a similar sized vehicle.

GM asks you to move up to a much larger, more expensive vehicle.

It's the one big major flaw of the otherwise excellent GMT-900s.

[caddycruiser]

But the others can give you reasonable 3rd-row accomodations with easier stowing in a similar sized vehicle.

GM asks you to move up to a much larger, more expensive vehicle.

It's the one big major flaw of the otherwise excellent GMT-900s.

189403[/snapback]

Agreed. And coming from an actual owner of one, though the 3rd row in the longer models is actually fit for humans, it's still the ONLY one that is clunky and heavy and has to be unlatched and wrangled out the back. Still not a huge deal if you only do it occasionally (like us), but everyone else has done better for a LONG time...and they've never required you to get a larger model to have it.

But beyond that, the Escalade is still an awesome truck, just not a very roomy or adaptable one, and still missing a few features (like a non-econo car tilt wheel adjustment).

I'd still agree with the rankings, though the writing on the Caddy (and the Lincoln, as well) could definately have been more thorough and descriptive--just seemed kind of short and opiniated, but nothing really specific.

Edited September 5, 2006 by caddycruiser

[mystik]

This happened in Motor Trend as well. The Mercedes gets the pass because its Mercedes. Soon as they get in it, they begin to notice while its good, not why its bad. When anyone, ANYONE, sits in a GM car, they look for faults, not for successes. Just the way it is, and sadly, the way it always will be. The QX56 is cheap, period. Theres a reason my neighbors down the street traded theirs in for a new Suburban. Tired of being frustrated with these rags that enjoy nothing more than dissing the domestics. Why hasnt anyone done a review of a Tahoe/Sequoia/Pathfinder yet? Why isnt the GX470 in this review? Because theyre dated Japanese vehicles, and you dont use dated vehicles in a comparison test unless theyre American.

[caddycruiser]

Some valid points, but sometimes that's just the way things go.

The MB GL is a TERRIFIC ute, and truthfully does have just about everything covered. Quality and refinement is there in spades, great space and adaptability, and all for a price that's actually very competetive. On a few different internet boards, a lot of buyers have actually been comparing the Escalade and the GL back to back, and both have their high points, but the MB has more of them.

But still, this does NOT show much bad about the new GM's. It's one review, and not an overly descriptive one at that, but it still brings up some valid points.

[Cory Wolfe]

*Agrees with Caddy Cruiser*

[The O.C.]

Looking again at the title of this thread....."C&D BS"....

Why don't you guys that are so overly GM-supportive bitch at GM THEMSELVES for putting out a new product with such a major design fault as a cumbersome-to-remove 3rd-row package with a lack of roominess?

Why is C&D "dishing out BS" because they hold Caddy's feet to the fire on this?

Listen....I like the new Escalade. But instead of trashing C&D, I'd rather raise holy hell at GM for not equipping their most important new vehicles (GMT-900) with class-leading features that are a must-have in this segment.

Why all the (truly) mis-directed anger? Why "protect" GM when they truly missed this market in this area?

Why NOT congratulate (the losing....) Navigator for it's IRS and roomy 2nd- and 3rd rows?

Why NOT congratulate (the winning....) Mercedes for offering as much or more vehicle in a (slightly) smaller and more efficient package?

Why do you guys ALWAYS seem to give GM a break on crap like this? It's what I truly don't understand.....

.....but.....I digress........

On to the next topic......

[Drew Dowdell]

The "bs" is the QX being rated above the Escalade. No one here has said the Escalade doesn't have it's faults, the complaint is that the QX was rated above it. I recall one poster saying that it should have finished 3rd.

IMHO, the Audi is kinda not in the right segment for this compairo. It is much too small comparitively. Similar to compairing the prev-gen 3-series to the current gen CTS. The BMW/Audi gets a pass on it's smaller size while the Caddy gets knocked for providing more space for the same money.

[caddycruiser]

The "bs" is the QX being rated above the Escalade. No one here has said the Escalade doesn't have it's faults, the complaint is that the QX was rated above it.  I recall one poster saying that it should have finished 3rd.

IMHO, the Audi is kinda not in the right segment for this compairo. It is much too small comparitively.  Similar to compairing the prev-gen 3-series to the current gen CTS. The BMW/Audi gets a pass on it's smaller size while the Caddy gets knocked for providing more space for the same money.

189724[/snapback]

Agreed, and though it still isn't top notch in every level of quality (it has improved quite a bit, though), the packaging and interior space were SO good, that that alone boosted it just ahead of the Escalade. Killer drivetrain, and as said, quite nice to drive without any real complaints.

The Caddy has nicer materials and a better visual inside and out, but that isn't always the top concern in this class. Just think if the Caddy had the seats/room setup of the QX or Navi...and extra features more like the STS/XLR...

Edited September 5, 2006 by caddycruiser

[Drew Dowdell]

oh yeah, and more of the "bs"

Finally, they say that the Escalade has all sorts of flash, and in the verdict they say "Famous for being Famous" but somehow it receives a 13 out of 25 in the "gotta-have-it factor"?

who ever raps about a QX?

[pow]

oh yeah, and more of the "bs"

who ever raps about a QX?

189728[/snapback]

BS. The QX's gotta-have-it-factor was even lower than the Escalade's.

[pow]

This happened in Motor Trend as well. The Mercedes gets the pass because its Mercedes. Soon as they get in it, they begin to notice while its good, not why its bad. When anyone, ANYONE, sits in a GM car, they look for faults, not for successes. Just the way it is, and sadly, the way it always will be. The QX56 is cheap, period. Theres a reason my neighbors down the street traded theirs in for a new Suburban. Tired of being frustrated with these rags that enjoy nothing more than dissing the domestics. Why hasnt anyone done a review of a Tahoe/Sequoia/Pathfinder yet? Why isnt the GX470 in this review? Because theyre dated Japanese vehicles, and you dont use dated vehicles in a comparison test unless theyre American.

189627[/snapback]

The GL, Q, QX, Escalade, and Navigator were all new/redesigned for '07. Next.

[Northstar]

BS. The QX's gotta-have-it-factor was even lower than the Escalade's.

189730[/snapback]

But only by 2 points. The Escalade should have been 20+ in gotta-have-it-factor.

[Robert Hall]

I'm not in the market for big luxury SUVs, but the Benz would get my vote in this group..less obese than the others, decent styling, very drivable, and it doesn't have the 'bling' image of the Escalade (which is a negative IMHO). If I wanted a luxury SUV, though, I'd be more likely to go for something smaller, like a current style X5.

[The O.C.]

The "bs" is the QX being rated above the Escalade. No one here has said the Escalade doesn't have it's faults, the complaint is that the QX was rated above it.  I recall one poster saying that it should have finished 3rd.

IMHO, the Audi is kinda not in the right segment for this compairo. It is much too small comparitively.  Similar to compairing the prev-gen 3-series to the current gen CTS. The BMW/Audi gets a pass on it's smaller size while the Caddy gets knocked for providing more space for the same money.

189724[/snapback]

Well like I said....I've never driven a QX so I can't judge. I KNOW I'm no fan of the Infiniti's interior though.....

I'd have to say that the Audi is a PERFECT fit in this competitive segment.

You can't always compare vehicles on total size......people are looking to spend $50-$60K on a "full" size SUV....inevitably the Audi WILL be compared to vehicles such as Escalade (and Navigator, GL-Class, etc.)

And about comparing CTS to 3-Series......well, I'm one example....when it came down to it (and I crossed the 5 off my list) my last two cars that I was cross-shopping WAS CTS and 3-Series. SIMILAR price, SIMILAR size.....

CTS is a bit bigger......and a bit cheaper......but definitely close enough to be a viable 3-Series competitior.

[Drew Dowdell]

And about comparing CTS to 3-Series......well, I'm one example....when it came down to it (and I crossed the 5 off my list) my last two cars that I was cross-shopping WAS CTS and 3-Series.  SIMILAR price, SIMILAR size.....

CTS is a bit bigger......and a bit cheaper......but definitely close enough to be a viable 3-Series competitior.

189880[/snapback]

the current 3-series, yes. The previous one had interior room around the same as a Civic.... that's why I used that comparison

[pow]

Well like I said....I've never driven a QX so I can't judge.  I KNOW I'm no fan of the Infiniti's interior though.....

I'd have to say that the Audi is a PERFECT fit in this competitive segment.

You can't always compare vehicles on total size......people are looking to spend $50-$60K on a "full" size SUV....inevitably the Audi WILL be compared to vehicles such as Escalade (and Navigator, GL-Class, etc.)

And about comparing CTS to 3-Series......well, I'm one example....when it came down to it (and I crossed the 5 off my list) my last two cars that I was cross-shopping WAS CTS and 3-Series.  SIMILAR price, SIMILAR size.....

CTS is a bit bigger......and a bit cheaper......but definitely close enough to be a viable 3-Series competitior.

189880[/snapback]

The Q7 and Escalade are actually very similar in length and width... just not height.

[Robert Hall]

The Q7 and Escalade are actually very similar in length and width... just not height.

189927[/snapback]

Yes, I checked the stats in the article..they were all fairly well matched dimensionally.. the Audi is only 2.3 inches shorter than the Escalade..but almost 10 inches lower in height (which should be good for lowering the center of gravity). The biggest problem with the Audi I saw is that it is as obese as the others..5500+ pounds!