Great Debates Lite. I like it.
What’s the difference between the Lincoln Navigator and a Chevy Suburban? They’re about the same size, they both seat lots of people, have many horses under the hood, and are rated as tow vehicles. The only difference I see is price tag and marketing, the Navigator being pushed as a “luxury SUV”, whatever that’s supposed to mean.
Who buys “luxury SUVs”, anyway? SUV means “soccer mom”–what does she want with leather upholstery?
Discuss.
If you buy the Navigator over the Suburban, you’re crazy. If you want leather and 9 speaker sound and all that pansy stuff, which you shouldn’t find in an SUV anyway, then go for the Navigator. But if you want pulling power, a vehicle that sounds like a truck, and cupholders out the ass, then get the Suburban. I love trucks, and that’s what Chevy makes. The Lincoln should not be treated roughly. It has actually neither the S or the U of the SUV. It’s barely a V.
I'm a bit heated on the topic, because a hate it when people buy a vehicle they don't need just to see better or because it makes them feel safer. I. E Soccer Moms. Buy a volvo. You don't need the Grand Cherokee. You're never taking 4 month old Randolph on trails in his car seat, and besides your cell would probably not work there and we all know how that's a fate worse than death....
Whew! Done
Well, I’ll be responding to this thread with much bias as I don’t really like Fords… 
The Chevy Suburban fucking rocks! It’s $15,000 less. It has greater fuel range. It has greater towing capacity. And it’s not as prissy looking.
Okay, let’s do the rundown.
They both have 300HP. They’re both V8s. The Chevy is 6.0 liters. The Ford is 5.4 liters. Leather is available for both. And of course, there’s all the standard stuff – A/C, power windows, power door locks, intermittent wipers, AM/FM radio w/CD player, multiple power outlets, fold away third seat, etc., etc., etc.
But yet, the Navigator is $46,000; the Suburban is $30,000. You do the math.
Suburban: The Original. The best. And it’ll be around as long as you take care of it.
Navigator: Another puky Ford product, and you’ll pay for the Lincoln name (go figure!). It doesn’t walk the talk, IMO.
Besides, you’d better trade it in every couple of years before it starts self-destructing, and Fords’ after sale service record SUCKS!.
The only way I’d accept a Ford would be if it were free, and then I’d have it only long enough to unload it.
Navigator: Screams Wash Me (or at least use the feather duster). Take me to pick up the next lecturer at the airport.
Suburban: Forget the sudsy water - fill me up with equipment and let’s go out in the field AGAIN!
Oh, you want us to COMPARE them…damn, I thought I was going to see a bunch of them in head to head crashes. 
Please be more clear in your titles, you had my hopes up there.
This is great–four other people so far agree with me that the Ford Motor Company ought to stop trying to think outside the box. “Back in the box”, fellas.
I’m still trying to figure out who they think is going to buy this thing. Aging Boomers who want to drive to the opera in their tow vehicle? Aging Boomers who want to “See the U.S.A.” with leather upholstery? Silicon Valley Next-ers? “I want to drive a car just like my dad’s, but with leather upholstery to reflect my million-dollar lifestyle…”
Shall I even mention the Cadillac Escalade?
I have a '91 Suburban - one of the older huge ones. (My boss has a new model that is more like a car than a truck.) For the most part, I love it. I need a vehicle that I can put 500 lbs. of cat litter in and leave it for a few days if I want to. I need something that can haul lumber in the rain. I need something that I can drive to a cat show in, with 5 or 6 cats and all of their equipment in the back, and still have a place to lay down to sleep on long trips. And, if a bunch of cat show friends want to go out to eat together, I can fit 9 people into the Suburban with no problem. And the Suburban is the first ‘truck-type’ vehicle I’ve ever driven where the seat adjusted so that I could actually see out and drive properly and comfortably! And I have 4 wheel drive for the occasional winter storms that trap everyone else at home in the sunny South.
My other car is a VW, and I’m much more worried about having a wreck in it than in the Suburban. Also, I get a much better view of traffic from the Suburban, so I’m a safer driver!
Drawbacks are that the Suburban is hard to park and maneuver, especially in small parking areas or narrow streets. It’s rather scary to take one into a parking deck, at least mine, which is about 6’4" high. And it’s a gas hog with a positively frightening gas tank - holds 42 gallons. I almost fainted the first time I filled it up!
My Suburban may be a little heavier-duty than most, as it was originally owned by the Park Ranger service in some western state (Colorado? I’d have to look at the little sticker that’s still in the window to see).
DreamWorks, I knew I liked you for a reason. The operative word in Sport-Utility Vehicle, as far as I’m concerned, is “utility”. Thus, it’s all about the Suburban. Since the Escalade is built on the Chevy Tahoe platform (mmm…Tahoe), I’m cool with it. I think it’s a little goofy to buy a damned Cadillac SUV when you can get a Tahoe instead (see parenthetical expression above), but hey, that’s your business. And, as DreamWorks implied, after all considerations of mud-spattered badassedness have been addressed, it’s all about the cupholders. Chevy slaps cupholders all over the damned place, so you know their heads are in the right place.
Not to confuse the subject, but, who here would like to see a full size Dodge to compete with Navigator and Tahoe/Yukon?
BTW, technically the Excursion, Suburban and Yukon XL are competitors. Whereas the Navigator, Expedition, Tahoe, Yukon, Denali and Escalade are competitors. There is a difference (to marketing guys).
If I was rich, and could have any car(s) I wanted, I would have a silver gray Volvo S70 and a Lincoln Navigator. Totally impractical, but so luxe.
Between the Navigator and Suburban, I’d take…neither. If I did have to choose, I’d take the Navigator, being as I am a loyal Ford man. But to be honest, I’d really rather have a Buick. Just kidding. I’d rather have an Explorer.
The Escalade is built on the Yukon platform.
The Tahoe is more on the Suburban Platform.
If you want an SUV, get a real one and get a Grand Cherokee.
As a former owner of the TRUE SUV (a 95 Suburban LT) I will state that for the money a Chevy 'Burban is the way to go.
I even took it for some four wheeling adventures and even though it couldn’t handle some of the stuff my ext cab, long bed, 3/4 ton Chevy truck with a 454 (manual tranny) could do, it still went places few SUVs could go. Even for it’s size (still smaller in length than my truck) it still was a great psuedo truck.
Personally I would rather have a truck similar to the above, but my 'Burban was a damn fun vehicle and I wish I still had it. < sniff, sniff > In fact it would be paid off now!
I realize that what you meant to say here was Grand Wagoneer.
Well, somebody’s gotta say it:
ARE YOU PEOPLE NUTS???
The price of gasoline is over 2 bucks a gallon in places, and y’all are still out there buying these 12-miles-per-gallon monstrosities??? Welcome to the world of the hundred-dollar tank of gas! What does it take to convince folks to seek fuel efficiency?
I’m not nuts, I’m the village idiot!
My Grand Cherokee gets about 13-14 miles/gallon, while my Corvette gets about 11-12. 
ZJ or WJ? Don’t matter, Mopar never shoulda killed the SJ (Fullsize Wagoneer/Cherokee/J-series PU). Only 250 horses from the 360 cid V8, but it’s a low-end torque MONSTER (300 lb-ft @2000 rpm)
Check 'em out: http://home.off-road.com/~ifsja (Int’l Club)
http://www.angelfire.com/tx3/jkbaker/frmpge.html (mine)