Chevrolet Tahoe vs. Ford Expedition vs. GMC Yukon vs. Jeep Wagoneer vs. Nissan Armada vs. Toyota Sequoia

From the September/October issue of Car and Driver.

There was great lamentation in the office when we discovered that the World’s Largest Horseshoe Crab was no more. “Crabbie” had been dismantled and moved from its home in nearby Hillsboro, Ohio, just weeks before our proposed excursion to see it. Rumors say it’s gone to Alabama, perhaps to find a giant mate—horseshoe crabs being rare in saltwater-free Ohio.

Not rare in Ohio are other attractions claiming to be the world’s largest. There are more than a dozen stops in the Buckeye State that brag of their bigness. As we crossed the state line from Michigan in six of today’s roomiest full-size SUVs, we were only a Guinness adjudicator short of claiming World’s Largest Large-Vehicle Comparison.

Like the oversize objects that lure families (and Car and Driver editors) off the highway to places such as local pie stands and the former headquarters of a basket manufacturer, each of these three-row SUVs is comically large, promises entertainment for all ages, and vies for a superlative title. We chose our massive caravanners with an eye toward interior space and multirow comfort. There are no bargains in this segment, but we balanced cost with luxury and ended up with lavishly optioned versions of popular models while still keeping prices under six digits. Although many of the competitors offer alternate engine options and even larger versions with stretched wheelbases, we shied away from those and picked our lineup to suit an imaginary big family’s need for semiregular hauling and towing, as well as everyday usability (for example, parking without requiring an airport ground crew).

General Motors claimed two spots in the matchup with the mildly refreshed Chevrolet Tahoe and the upscale but not quite Escalade-class GMC Yukon Denali. There are many versions of the Tahoe and Yukon, with options for diesel and gas engines, as well as longer-wheelbase variants—the Suburban for Chevy and the XL for GMC. We stuck with the big, naturally aspirated 6.2-liter V-8s in standard-size vehicles. Our Tahoe was a top-trim High Country, and GMC sent over the luxurious Denali.

Ford’s big offering is the Expedition, which also comes in a Dodger Dog extra-long version, the Max. Each Expedition uses a twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter V-6. The mossy-green Expedition Platinum Stealth Performance that joined our train came with the high-output version of that engine, making 440 horsepower as opposed to the standard 400 horses.

Jeep sent us the Wagoneer, leaving the longer Wagoneer L at home. The plenty-long Wagoneer Series III Super is powered by what is now the sole engine on offer, a 420-hp twin-turbocharged 3.0-liter inline-six.

Toyota’s family hauler is the Sequoia, here dressed in the new 1794 Edition trim, named for the former ranch in Texas where the Sequoia is assembled. The Sequoia doesn’t come in an extended-wheelbase version, and it’s also the only hybrid in our group, with a twin-turbo 3.4-liter V-6 engine paired with an electric motor for a total of 437 horsepower.

Last on this list is the redesigned Nissan Armada, which swaps the old model’s V-8 for a more powerful 425-hp twin-turbo 3.5-liter V-6 and, like the Toyota, comes in only one size. The Armada arrived in a hip gray-green hue and was trimmed with all the goodies of the Platinum Reserve spec. All of our competitors offer rear-drive-only layouts, but for this road trip, each comes equipped with all- or four-wheel drive.

With our team taking up the full length of a freeway on-ramp, we set out to bring some of the world’s biggest SUVs to some of the biggest roadside attractions, with the goal of discovering which vehicle best meets the challenges of baby seats, highway navigation, wet weather, third-row access, and parallel parking. It proved to be a big ask.

6th Place: Toyota Sequoia

The Sequoia was a visual standout as the only SUV of the group whose designers resisted the trend toward boxy, hard-edged styling. Its carved, flared fenders and raked windshield weren’t loved by our fashionista reviewers, but several logbook entries noted that the Toyota had better sightlines and felt more maneuverable than its right-angled rivals. That might be because the Sequoia is smaller in its exterior dimensions, especially compared with the Jeep, which hangs out of a parking spot another 6.6 inches past the Sequoia’s bumper. The Toyota’s 122.0-inch wheelbase was on the larger side, and the SUV is plenty weighty at 6229 pounds, so the sense of it being smaller had more to do with edges and overhangs than outright size.

Toyota Sequoia 1794 Edition

HIGHS: Hybrid fuel economy, useful small-item storage, sturdy chassis.
LOWS: Unrefined ride, cramped third row, small cargo area.
VERDICT: Sensible but not spectacular.

Inside, the Sequoia’s special-edition interior uses high-end materials, with saddle-brown leather and real wood, but lays them out in a blocky, robotic grid that feels at odds with the 1794 Edition’s Western-ranch theme. “Giddyap” does not compute.

While the cowboy Toyota didn’t totally win us over, we all enjoyed the driver’s seating position and the large center console with its useful dividers. One of our crew referred to them as bento boxes in reference to the handy compartmented design, although they could use some rubber lining to prevent items from rattling.

The Sequoia also surprised us with massaging seats, standard on the Platinum trim and above. A 14.0-inch touchscreen offered a large infotainment display, but the camera clarity wasn’t as sharp as other competitors’.

Every one of these SUVs is quicker than many sports sedans of the recent past. The Sequoia’s hybrid powerplant and 10-speed transmission put down a 5.7-second sprint to 60 mph and a 14.2-second quarter-mile. Sequoia drivers will be able to pass, merge, and make it over mountains without having to move to the slow lane. The hybrid also got the best fuel economy, returning 20 mpg overall.

All of this sounds pretty good, and it is. Where the mighty Sequoia tumbled was in handling and rear accommodations. The Toyota’s light steering and a soft brake pedal that was compared to stepping into a marsh sapped driver confidence. Plus, the Sequoia had the second-worst stopping distance of 188 feet (from 70 mph) and a skidpad whirl that tied for lowest at 0.72 g. The rest of the pack uses a multilink rear suspension—the Sequoia rides on a live rear axle, and on the road, we noted a rougher ride.

Toyota’s rear suspension choice also affected passenger and cargo space, and that’s really why the Sequoia finished last. The second row offered decent room but wasn’t the cushy seating experience of the other trucks. Senior features editor Greg Fink, dad to a toddler, rated the Sequoia’s anchor points well, saying the lower ones were easy to reach, although the upper one took some digging to find.

The third row really knocked the Sequoia down, with an entry angle that required not just a step up but a spiral staircase, only to end in cramped leg- and headroom. And the high load floor made packing in cargo a chore. As tested, the $86,704 Sequoia has an 8977-pound tow rating and may be a better choice for those with trailers than those with teenagers.

5th Place: Nissan Armada

The Nissan Armada turned the most heads during our week in Ohio. The redesign gave it an imposing upright profile, like a supersize Land Rover, and it looks good from any angle, unlike some of the other SUVs in this matchup (Ford Expedition, we’re talking about you and your weird rear panel).

Our initial response was enthusiastic, with comments on how good the camera system was, how easy the SUV was to maneuver despite its gargantuan proportions, the seat comfort, and how quiet the interior was during highway cruising. We also liked the Armada’s diamond-stitched leather, although one of our more persnickety reviewers noted a mismatch in leather texture and graining between the seats and door panels.

Nissan Armada Platinum Reserve 4×4

HIGHS: Loaded with cool features, attractive interior materials, bodacious exterior presence.
LOWS: Persnickety infotainment, unsettled ride, “Hey, your turn signal’s been on for the past four miles.”
VERDICT: A solid effort that could use some fine-tuning.

It was only as the miles stretched on that the Armada began to show weakness. At first, it was small things, like the monostable turn-signal stalk that required such a light touch for a lane change that not a single driver among us could master it, leading to much merriment over the radios as we watched whoever was in the Nissan struggle to cancel the turn signals. There were connectivity issues with phone mirroring and complaints about the optional ProPilot Assist 2.1’s hands-free-driving technology. We’d repeat them, but they were mostly swear words over the radio about bizarre following distances and uneven lane keeping.

Around town, the new twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter V-6 and nine-speed transmission were responsive and almost sporty sounding, but long periods behind the wheel revealed lethargic shifts that, combined with an aggressive throttle tip-in and clumsy suspension tuning, made for discombobulated ride motions. The Armada was the slowest performer at the track, its 425 horsepower and 516 pound-feet of torque failing to propel it any quicker than 14.5 seconds in the quarter-mile. It also needed 6.0 seconds to reach 60 mph. It somewhat made up for that with the winning braking distance of just 178 feet and the second-best skidpad result of 0.77 g.

The Armada’s baby-seat rating was lower than the Sequoia’s, with all the anchor points deemed finicky. The second row lost points for having windows that only rolled partway down, and the third row required a scramble to get into. Once ensconced, we found the rearmost seat flat-cushioned and low on amenities. Managing reviews editor Andrew Krok described the Armada’s seating chart as similar to that of an international flight, with front-seat occupants enjoying first-class amenities, second-row passengers surviving on snacks in premium economy, and back-seat riders jammed into coach. “I’m just glad there isn’t a lavatory back here,” Krok said as technical editor Dan Edmunds reclined his second-row seatback into Krok’s knees.

The Armada came into harbor fully loaded at $88,800, but that felt too rich given its rocky ride, mediocre rear-seat comfort, and smallish rear cargo space. It may be a handsome vessel, but the Armada didn’t float all the way to the top.

3rd Place (Tie): GMC Yukon

Our next two vehicles tied, even though the Yukon Denali almost busted through our $100,000 cap with its $96,365 sticker price, which is $13K more than the Ford, the least expensive SUV in the test. But the price differential is accounted for in our scoring, so the GMC squeezes into a tight parking space on the third tier of the podium.

GMC Yukon Denali 4×4

HIGHS: Impressive hands-free driving, comfy ride, silent runner.
LOWS: Cadillac Escalade starts at $90K, Mercedes-Benz GLS starts at $90K, Lincoln Navigator starts at $102K.
VERDICT: Doesn’t quite have the glamour to match its high-end price.

The Yukon was not the performance winner in any category. It barely beat the Nissan to 60 mph and through the quarter-mile, and it took a full 182 feet to shudder to a halt from 70 mph. Yet the Yukon was a group favorite in terms of driving comfort. Phrases involving cumulus clouds and floating fill the logbook, and while that level of isolation might not be what you want in a sports car, it’s satisfying in a big SUV. The Yukon’s sedate, naturally aspirated acceleration felt appropriate for a vehicle with the mass of a collapsing star, and its quiet interior allowed us to appreciate the 10-speaker Bose audio and quick phone mirroring on the customizable 16.8-inch center screen.

A quibble we had in most of these machines was the huge amount of room devoted to center consoles with limited space inside them. This is particularly frustrating to exactly the drivers who might be piloting family vehicles, where an easy-to-reach diaper bag or satchel can mean the difference between efficiently sending snacks to the back seat and having to pull over and rummage. We’re placing this lament here because GMC (and Chevy) makes a big deal about its full-size SUVs having movable consoles, but when you slide the console back, there’s no longer an armrest for front-seat riders, and if you slide it forward, you squash the contents of a bag in that space. Most parents have enough work to do cleaning up smashed foodstuffs from upholstery without having to worry about the car adding more.

We’d like to discuss some things with whoever spec’d this Denali too, because $495 for the vinyl floor-liner package is a lot to pay to make your interior look like you’re planning to butcher deer in it. We also had less than charitable thoughts about the quality of the materials. Real leather and wood can be selling points, but not when the leather, to quote one reviewer, “has the recoil effect of looking at your pores in a magnifying mirror.”

Another surprise from the Yukon was the lack of luxury behind the first row. Buyers can option an entertainment system to amuse midship passengers, but we were startled to see that the second-row floor rails are completely exposed when the seats are flipped forward, which is both a tripping hazard and a way to get grease all over your carpets. Maybe that’s why this Denali was equipped with the plastic floor mats. It may be a quick clean, but it couldn’t wipe away the large-SUV competition.

3rd Place (Tie): Ford Expedition

Ford made some noticeable changes to the Expedition for 2025. It gets new lights front and rear and a new grille. More polarizing are the changes to the back end, where a two-piece tailgate is welcome, but its blacked-out graphics are less so. What really caused argument—in fact the only detail on the trip that led to raised voices over breakfast—was the cockpit redesign. You’d be forgiven for thinking the Expedition was all electric rather than being powered by a twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter V-6, because it has a squircle steering wheel with minimalist haptic buttons completely devoid of any helpful iconography. To decode the system, the display screen near the base of the windshield will flash the number of features—including the headlights and memory-seat positions—with settings buried in touchscreen menus. Physically, the Expedition is roomy and comfortable, but visually, with the multiple focal planes of information and strange placement of controls, it’s claustrophobic.

Ford Expedition Platinum Stealth Performance

HIGHS: Ludicrously quick for an SUV, impressive standard tow rating, clever front-console design.
LOWS: Information overload, screen-based controls, grabby brakes.
VERDICT: Ford is looking to the future—perhaps too far into the future.

Interior tech aside, all of us lauded the Ford’s comfortable ride and superior speed and handling. The Expedition wiped the floor with the other competitors, ripping to 60 mph in 5.1 seconds, crossing the quarter-mile in an absurd 13.8 seconds, blasting to a (limited) 125-mph top speed, and pulling 0.78 g on the skidpad. We felt it on the road too, with incredible passing power and nimble handling for a big bruiser. The Ford also boasts the best as-tested towing capacity, coming out of the box ready to haul 9600 pounds.

If you’re planning on drag racing, the Expedition is clearly the large SUV for you. It also impressed us with the most usable center console, with room for bags beneath the armrest, and a USB port in the cargo area for superior tailgating parties. So, with all of this and the lowest price in the test at $83,490, why didn’t the Ford place higher?

Again it comes down to second- and third-row comfort. Fink’s kid-friendliness report was that the lower child-seat anchor points were a challenge, and for larger folks, the second row’s low seatback and flat cushions felt disappointing after the plushness of the front. Third-row passengers had cramped legroom and an armrest that dumped the rider’s elbow directly into the cupholder. The Expedition puts forward a compelling argument, but it’s not the most family-friendly, and it also lost points from voters who disliked its futuristic interface even more than they liked its rocket-ship acceleration.

2nd Place: Jeep Wagoneer

Whenever you get in a Jeep product, you just know the engineers spent time using it the way they imagined the customers would. For the Wagoneer, that means easy-to-navigate controls, spacious storage options, and impressive tow ratings. Although our test Jeep was only equipped to tow 5890 pounds, a Wagoneer can be spec’d for up to 10,000 pounds.

Our Wagoneer’s black-leather interior was an aesthetic fail compared with the more ambitious designs of the Nissan and the Toyota. A vehicle costing $86,120 ought to have a nicer screen setup and a less dismal swath of material across the dashboard. On the other hand, the cabin was open and comfortable in every row, garnering the title of Biggest Back Seats both in measurement and through our less scientific process of jamming three of us back there without anyone touching in a way that would trigger an HR meeting.

Jeep Wagoneer Series III Super 4×4

HIGHS: Comfort in all three rows, user-friendly infotainment, a ballet dancer in the twisties.
LOWS: Nicer materials are saved for the Grand Wagoneer, hard to fit into a tight spot, long stopping distance.
VERDICT: Lives up to the family-friendly history of the Wagoneer name.

The Wagoneer is without question the best choice for a full load of humans, with accessible anchor points for child car seats and rows that are easy to get into and out of for mid-size and full-grown folks. The Series III Super specification also brings a standard power-retractable side step (optional on the Series III) that was both the quickest to deploy and the most attractive while folded. Features like two-phone connectivity are also great for families, where a teen can choose the music while a parent can still use their own phone for navigation and communication.

The Jeep was well liked as a driver’s car, as its proportions didn’t keep it from feeling deft and maneuverable. The twin-turbo 3.0-liter inline-six offers smooth power delivery, and the Jeep managed better-than-average numbers at the test track, with a 5.3-second run to 60 mph and a 13.9-second quarter-mile pass. The Wagoneer was less impressive in braking, where it took a disconcerting 207 feet to stop from 70 mph, nearly 30 feet longer than the best-in-test Nissan. On the road, though, the brakes felt predictable and easy to modulate, and the Jeep’s handling in the few twisty areas of our route garnered praise.

While other vehicles on this trip outshone the Jeep in single categories, there was only one that gave it competition for overall enjoyment while still meeting the use case for a three-row SUV.

1st Place: Chevrolet Tahoe

And here’s our winner, the big American road-trip hero, the Chevy Tahoe. Much of what we liked about the Tahoe applies to the GMC Yukon, but it’s hard to argue for spending more on the GMC when all the good stuff is here for less. Our test Tahoe was admittedly on the high side at $93,330, but that’s less than the Yukon Denali and still brought air-spring comfort and startlingly good Super Cruise hands-free driving. Of all the driver-assist programs in this comparo—Nissan’s ProPilot, Ford’s BlueCruise, and GM’s Super Cruise—GM’s was the only one where it wasn’t immediately obvious that a robot was manning the controls. We still found that Super Cruise changed lanes when it didn’t need to, and sometimes it didn’t when it should have, but for long stretches with no construction, it made for a confidence-inspiring co-pilot.

Chevrolet Tahoe High Country 4×4

Highs: Three-row American muscle, cargo- and trailer-hauling prowess, responsive handling.
Lows: Fuel thirsty, challenging third-row entrance, price rises fast with upper trims.
Verdict: Camaro vibes in a truck-shaped package.

Ford should take a look at Chevy’s steering wheel too, which has everything you need, is easy to use, and is round. Volume and seek functions on the back of the steering wheel are functionally appealing, even if the arrangement isn’t futuristic.

We liked the Chevrolet’s no-nonsense interior. It doesn’t try to push forward design or challenge for luxury; it’s just comfortable seats and a spacious cargo area. Same goes for its naturally aspirated V-8, which hustled the Tahoe through the quarter-mile in a respectable-for-a-truck 14.3 seconds and, more important, pleased us with its torquey corner exits and cheerful American growl. Skidpad grip was midpack at 0.74 g, but braking was near the head of the class with a 179-foot stop from 70 mph. Krok attempted to reference the Dead Milkmen with a “Biggun Camaro” note in the logbook, and while we might want to workshop that before adding it to his tight five at the Comedy Cellar, we all understood the inspiration.

The reasoning behind choosing a truck-based three-row SUV over a large crossover or a minivan is a mix of logic and vanity. If you’re towing or venturing off-pavement, this is how you can achieve pickup-truck performance without getting anything wet or leaving anyone behind. It’s also okay to admit that they just look cool and feel good. The Chevy Tahoe isn’t the World’s Biggest Three-Row SUV, but it might be the World’s Best.

You Might Also Like