I’m in the market for a used 4WD full-size SUV. My budget is around $15,000, so I’ve been narrowing it down to a Suburban or an Expedition.
What’s surprising is how much cheaper the Expeditions are compared to Suburbans in the used market. Is it just better marketing on Chevy’s part, or are there actual differences in quality and reliability that make the Suburban more desirable?
For those of you who’ve owned or sold both, what are the main reasons someone would pick one over the other? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Expeditions can be great SUVs, but a lot of people just prefer the Suburban’s reputation. Suburban is kind of seen as the gold standard for full-size SUVs, even if it’s just marketing.
Rin said:
Expeditions can be great SUVs, but a lot of people just prefer the Suburban’s reputation. Suburban is kind of seen as the gold standard for full-size SUVs, even if it’s just marketing.
Especially with the option for custom mounts for things like tools or equipment. Suburban appeals to a wider audience.
Suburban feels like a better choice overall. It’s been updated more often, and Chevy seems to focus more attention on it. The Expedition was stuck with the 5.4 for years, and while it’s okay, the 5.3 in the Suburban is more reliable.
Suburban also drives more like a car, which appeals to families, while the Expedition feels more like a pickup truck.
@Ori
I don’t agree. Chevy interiors from 2003-2012 tend to fall apart. The gauge clusters are unreliable. I’ve been a tech for over 12 years and see this stuff weekly.
Finnley said: @Ori
I don’t agree. Chevy interiors from 2003-2012 tend to fall apart. The gauge clusters are unreliable. I’ve been a tech for over 12 years and see this stuff weekly.
I’ve been selling Chevys for years and haven’t had customers complain about that. Honestly, the interiors on Suburbans and Tahoes hold up better than most people think.
@Zion
Of course, you don’t see the problems. You sell them after they’ve been cleaned up. I’ve seen these vehicles in their natural state, and trust me, the interiors don’t age well.
Finnley said: @Zion
Of course, you don’t see the problems. You sell them after they’ve been cleaned up. I’ve seen these vehicles in their natural state, and trust me, the interiors don’t age well.
That’s not true. We also get trade-ins that are far from detailed or fixed. Still, I stand by what I’ve seen.
Finnley said: @Zion
Of course, you don’t see the problems. You sell them after they’ve been cleaned up. I’ve seen these vehicles in their natural state, and trust me, the interiors don’t age well.
I think you’re oversimplifying. You might see a lot of vehicles briefly in a shop, but you don’t spend as much time actually driving them or maintaining them long-term.
We owned a 2003 Expedition, and it had so many problems we swore off them. The 5.4L engine can be hit or miss. Suburban just feels like a more refined vehicle, and their engines tend to last longer. Avoid 2007-2008 models, though—they had issues when GM introduced new tech.
@Jesse
I completely disagree. Chevy’s V8 engines with cylinder deactivation are far from bulletproof. I’ve seen so many fail before 40,000 miles. Ford engines, on the other hand, tend to be more reliable.
@Perry
Chevy V8s aren’t garbage. The cylinder deactivation (AFM) can be annoying, but overall, they’re solid engines. I’ve worked on many with over 100k miles and no major issues.
I ended up going with an Expedition after looking at both. The Suburban has a better interior and feels more luxurious, but Expeditions tend to have fewer long-term reliability issues with things like electronics and transmissions. If you’re planning to keep it for a while, Expedition might be the better choice.
I’ve sold both vehicles, and right now, the Suburban is the better option. That said, Ford is making major updates to the Expedition soon, which should help. If you’re buying now, though, I’d go Suburban.