2018 Ford Expedition vs GMC Yukon: Which Truck Gets Better MPG Towing?

[@timon0x31]

Face it, most people that have Expeditions, and that care about milage, don't have them for work vehicles. So I don't really care about those pulling cargo and horse trailers over shorter distances. I want to see a test pulling a travel trailer, that has a good aerodynamic front cap, loaded to around 8,500 pounds, with 1,000 pounds (including driver) added above the vehicles curb weight and keeping the speed between 55 and 60 mph. That would be a more real world test for someone traveling around the country with their family. Now that's a fair test. Also, forget always using the highest model in the line. Stay with the more common models like the XLS but with the max towing package. Basically an Expedition that's priced at around 65K.

[@workct4102]

I can tell you that we used our 18 Expy Max, 4x4, 3.73 to tow our 24' TT (around 5500#) from WI to ID and back (4500 miles). We averaged 9.8 mpg...Family of 5, 2 dogs, 5 bikes and whatever clothes and food....

[@zach4321]

This video showed just how unbiased you guys are and people still try to find ways to complain. Keep up the good videos!

[@3sons66]

Right...regular length Ford vs. GMC XL (completely the same, right?) 2 people on the first run and 1 person the second (completely the same, right?). Nathan is a cheeseburger short of 3 hunge and it's all unbiased. Righhhhht.

[@djaftermath4313]

I'd still get the Expedition!

[@billymc2681]

The 3.73 gear is the difference maker. I have a 2015 F150 with 2.7 Ecoboost and can vouch that once the turbos get going (which is around 60-65mph) mpg will suffer. Kudos to GM ...never thought a 6.2 would get those numbers.

[@chevyon37s]

billy mc no it's not. With the 10 speed there is more than enough gear in the transmission. The lower axle gears make for more mechanical advantage so less work for the engine especially when towing, and city driving. It's pretty well a given you'll get better fuel mileage driving 60-65mph rather than 70+ due to wind resistance.

[@TheDaltonmichaels]

billy mc. That's a ridiculous assumption assuming you have no idea what gear it was driving in.

[@chevyon37s]

Dalton Michaels yup. I'm assuming it was in 5-7th gear most of the time pulling anyways. And higher "highway" gearing would just mean the transmission would be in an even lower gear to make up the difference.

[@TheDaltonmichaels]

i would assume the suburban was in 5th or 6th the EXP was probably in 7th or maybe even 8th. i wish they would have told us. everyone in the comments is saying gear ratios made the difference and i cant agree with that unless we knew what gears the cars were driving in and the ratios of said gears. a 3.73 in 7th gear could be the exact same final drive ratio as a 3.42 in 5th gear.

[@windrider65]

And the average RPM's during the 98 mile test. V8 V6, is like apples and oranges. Plus the total weight of SUV, trailer and passengers. it all plays a part in the overall MPG's.

[@stinkycheese804]

The important thing to take from this video is not which gets better MPG towing, it is that they are both similar enough that you should choose the one you like more for other reasons instead.

[@phild9813]

Yeah definitely. A person shouldn’t be buying one of these primarily for towing anyway, but they are fairly capable.

[@1mlb704]

Wow very cool comparison. I'm more of a GM guy but I work at a Ford dealership, and I've driven several F-150's and Expeditions with the 3.5L EcoBoosts and I am seriously impressed. They are very potent and so far proving to be pretty reliable as well. Still, amazing to see the mighty 6.2L N/A V8 beat out the EcoBoost in an MPG loop

[@stinkycheese804]

The ecoboosts are not proving to be reliable long term, which is what a truck/truck-like SUV ought to be. Unless you want to throw a few thousand dollars into problems down the road.

[@mobgma]

Impressed by GM. This was the XL model which is bigger and heavier. This Yukon also did not have the Tow Package either. Impressive. But most guys towing do no insanely care about the MPG when towing. They know it is going to be bad regardless. For the 10-12 times I tow in the summer, I could care less about 1 or 2 MPG between all manufacturers of the trucks.

[@ElectricBlueIX]

mobgma I would disagree. If you tow a lot, you would want to maximize your MPG’s. Driving 1,000+ miles that 1-2 mpg does make a difference.

[@drewpostma1703]

The fact that it didn’t have a tow package helped it lol.

[@linh811]

Tow package = less mpg

[@cdawg3506]

I love the new GM suv's, but the new Expedition is so much better

[@coleprell6280]

Lol the market says otherwise

[@stevenhugley4025]

Thanks for showing the wind verses no wind. It would’ve been easy to leave that out of this video, but you guys gave full disclosure.

[@zachl5504]

The long version Yukon Denali still beat the more expensive short version Expedition. I love GM's 6.2L V8, especially after the AFM is disabled! Much better durability, towing performance, and sound that Ford's 3.5L TT V6.

[@ghostking0019]

Zach L I feel like Ford is shooting themselves in the foot with the V6 crap lol especially because it's supposed to be more fuel efficient but still gets the same mpg as a V8 lol it's actually kinda sad

[@zachl5504]

I agree John. The only reasons I can see why they haven't offered their 5.0L V8 in the Expedition or Navigator have to be b/c they've invested so much money in Ecoboost engines and b/c they have to be making more repair money from Ecoboost engines than their 5.0L.

[@Steve-yr5vi]

What do you mean by beat? towing performance? change this test and send these two up a significant grade and the Expedition will easily out pace the 6.2L. The longer version of the Yukon is more aerodynamically efficient than a shorter Expedition, the longer body has more area to create smoother airflow.

[@zachl5504]

At higher elevations yes turbos do better. But have you not seen F-150's with Ecoboost engines towing in hot climates where the turbos overheat so they become unavailable, which leaves a 3.5L V6 towing heavy loads=way underpowered at that setting. Bottom line, Ecoboost engines do not get any better fuel economy than V8's, they have very close torque and hp numbers, and they don't last as long. So it begs the question, why go with an Ecoboost engine? I do love the interiors of the new Expedition's and Navigators but I can't stand the backs of them nor their lack of engine options.

[@jerry-381]

I don't know a lot about the 6.2 but I have a 2017 3.5 Ecoboost it does very well towing. Fuel mileage towing is not good but when I'm not towing I get 23 mpg highway in a 4x4 crew cab.

[@MultiPurposeReviewer]

I do not understand what people in these comments are whining about. A bunch of people are saying TFL is biased against GM; the Expedition had two tries and the GM truck STILL won! Why are you whining? These are the trucks they're given. Also, take a look at the trucks they actually buy and sell themselves: They sold the (Ford) Bronco, they sold the (Ford) Hiboy, and they're selling the (Ford) Raptor. Meanwhile, they bought a (GM) Big Green, they bought a (GM) Hummer H2, and Andre owns a (GM) Silverado. Does nobody actually watch their videos and notice this stuff?

[@MultiPurposeReviewer]

I would pick the (new) Expedition over the Tahoe any day, and if one was made, I'd probably pick a Ram SUV over both of them (the Durango doesn't quite cut it in my book). My gripe is with people claiming that TFL has a blatant bias against GM when that's clearly untrue.

[@windrider65]

@ MuiltiPurposeReviewer, I don't know if its true or not for the bias, but as far as the truck and van segment, I believe the big 3 all make good trucks and HD vans. People need to quit being fanboys and buy what you want, and what fits your needs and you can afford. Last year I bought a new Chevy Express van HD 2500, just a plain jane cargo van. I don't need it for work, I bought it to tow my camper with, and travel with our 3 big dogs. It fits my needs. I know that the Ford van can tow more then my van with the 3.5 twin turbo ecoboost, but it gets worse mpg towing. I wanted a V8, because of the fact that I feel that the 3.5 is just working too hard, the RPM's then the V8 while towing. If Ford still made the Econoline van with the 5 liter in it, that's what I would be driving today. Also in my eyes, the new Ford and Dodge vans are ugly. I'm 53, and grew up driving vans and I just can't get the new style vans to grow on me, but as I said buy what you want and be as happy as you can with it. If people want to put you down or tell you your stupid for buying it, just remember, its your money, and your the one that is using it not them. Stay safe and try to have a good day. Take care everybody.

[@MultiPurposeReviewer]

Well said.

[@Steve-yr5vi]

"Won" is subjective., they also report the Expedition handles the load much easier than the GM does, so it depends on the perspective. The power of the 3.5 EB is impressive, no one that drives one fails to remark about it.

[@MultiPurposeReviewer]

Also true. Good point.

[@thomaspaul2465]

Windy days pressure drops could be around 1.5 psi. I think the EB motor runs at atmosphere of 14.7psi plus 6 psi boost so you would lose about 1.5/20.7=7.25% hp or 30hp from 400hp. This plays a huge role as well along with elevation losses. Tow haul mode even at 70 will hold lower gears and higher rpm with a 10 speed so absolutely you burn more fuel in tow haul mode but you have better engine response due to higher rpm which burns more fuel I am left wondering if both trucks had premium fuel in the tank to start out with?

[@npsit1]

Just because it was a windy day doesn't mean the barometric pressure had dropped.. You're just pulling this crap out of your butt.

[@thomaspaul2465]

npsit1 Yes its a fact as we know it. Refer to Bernouli’s equation. More velocity means less pressure. Humans current understanding of math would make that a fact. Windy day means less barometric pressure. More wind less pressure less boost in the engine.

[@braedenpinkerton3218]

I honestly don't know why your comment string hasn't got more than 2 likes. Thanks for the rational!!

[@alejandini3133]

Okay Ford, no point in having ecoboost there. Time to upgrade to the 5.0L Coyote V8.

[@svpracer98]

Kind of surprised the v6 turbo didn't get better mileage... Good job GM!

[@AkioWasRight]

I kinda wasn't.

[@WhoThisGuy515]

Why were you surprised? Knowing how turbos work it would tell you that while hauling that much weight it would use more fuel. The smaller engine needs quite a bit of boost which means quite a bit more fuel. Eco turbo cars are only "eco" at low load low rpm situations.

[@andyharman3022]

I kinda wasn't either. Once the turbos start boosting, the fuel mixture has to be richened, then the fuel economy suffers. And the 3 extra cams, 8 more valves, and 6 feet of cam chains add to the friction of the Ecoboost, which hurts fuel economy as well.

[@leesantos9711]

😎👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@peterkay2406]

The expedition is a hot rod truck, not a towing truck, sure it can tow but it's made to haul (as in speed)

[@crunchyblack2224]

That’s the Yukon xl not the Yukon. Still a beast and love that V8 👍🏼🇺🇸🍻

[@opalbeifong695]

Still a beast with the looks too. The New Expeditions are ugly af, I saw one in person the other day and it was hideous. It was all fat and bubbly looking.

[@thelongdefeat8674]

@@opalbeifong695 looks are subjective. For example, I HATE the headlights on the tahoe/suburban but don't mind the Yukon/XL headlights. The expedition looks more mature and elegant. They drive much nicer than the GM product though..

[@coolsquad7428]

You guys can stick with a chevy that will explode and have a lot of engine issues like transmission problems and head gasgets problem and thats why ford is the king because they have the best bang for your buck they actually last and they don’t break down that much lime gm vheicles do they break down all the time i see it every year on the high way ohh a gm vheicle had broke down.

[@user-Timothy1]

@@coolsquad7428 you are right according to Scotty Kilmer he has found more issues in GMs Trucks than Ford Trucks especially the Chevy Silverado with transmission and engine issues less than 70000 miles

[@mountainhobo]

I can't help but wonder what mpg a 5.0 would get here if they offered it with this new transmission and in this aluminum body.

[@carlbroughton1199]

I was SHOCKED at the figures for BOTH VEHICLES! I drive a 2006 VOLVO big rig. I average 6.54 mpg loaded overall.

[@cdawg3506]

Woah, how big is your tank man?

[@kyle8380]

​@@cdawg3506most have 100-150 gallons

[@SurelyYewJest]

I wonder if this MPG performance is part of Ford's recent decision to go back to OHV V8 design for their next Super Duty gas offering. Clearly GM keeps getting that "old" tech to work well in spite of the layout's paper-based shortcomings versus OHC. GM has also been more willing to try a larger range of rear end ratios to help with mileage. Ford and Ram seem to be less willing to do so, relying on lower ratios as their offerings get heavier.

[@brabus3295]

That was the extended gmc yukon version and it still won.

[@Name-kd5jj]

Big V8s FTW. The EcoBOOM engines only win in city mpg. But GM's new V8s will have the dynamic skip-fire technology which should close the gap.

[@dustinharvey7394]

Rex Regum honestly the only time the ecoboost engine gets better milage is if you drive like a grandma (hyper mile it) or if its getting epa milage tested. Turbo engines are great at fooling the epa test.

[@0utrider]

GM has been winning for years and years.

[@0utrider]

Also there is no substitute for CUBIC INCH!

[@alexsmba]

TR Outrider really? So the most powerful Chevy engine is the 340hp 8.1 V8?

[@juliocervantes4994]

Tow package vs no tow package XL Yukon vs short expedition 🤔

[@chevyon37s]

I wish the Yukon would have had a tow package.... ALWAYS get the lowest gearing available weather the vehicle comes with a tow package or not! Companies are putting these tall gears in all their vehicles and it kills city and towing fuel mileage as well as makes a vehicle unenjoyable to drive if you ask me.

[@karlschauff7989]

The 10-speed's gearing is aggressive enough that the 3.23's are not a problem. The 10-speed with 3.23's has final drive in 1st gear that's more aggressive than the 6-speed with 3.73's.

[@Steve-yr5vi]

The longer body for the Yukon XL is able to create a better wind tunnel for the trailer; also I'd like to see data from an accelerometer for these tests, I'll bet the Ford is accelerating quicker than the GM because it can; however moving quicker means burning more fuel.

[@chrisprodromides8142]

Why I watch your videos- I trust your tests.

[@OverlandTT]

Great test and I was really pleased to see Andre at the end do the Ford again. Personally I'd go for the gmc with the V8. Do for do the expedition with a V8? Also could TFL maybe publish your daily combined mpg cycle for day to day driving. I'd be interested as in looking for to possibly import. Thanks guys awesome review! 👍

[@MultiPurposeReviewer]

Interesting how nobody mentioned that cladded mystery vehicle at 4:00. Any guesses?

[@alejandroisais634]

That would be an all new Jeep Cherokee on testing right now

[@MultiPurposeReviewer]

It does look like one. But given that the new one was already revealed, I don't know what they think they'd be hiding.

[@alejandroisais634]

No idea but probably some special trim or something? Just don't know

[@clintmiller88]

Have you guys ever seen if tow haul mode being off affects mpg? Would be cool video

[@AndyGarcia-ch1ci]

Biggest advantage is simply because the v8 is bigger and torquier. That’s also how GM can get away with a 3:23 final drive while the ford needs a lower ratio to help out the smaller engine output. Also good to note is that the Yukon was an XL which is the size of a suburban, and the expedition is the size of a Tahoe. The bigger and more stabile truck will pull more efficiently regardless of the little extra weight. Ultimately the biggest difference maker is just the fact that a v6 even with TT’s just isn’t the same as a bigger and torquier engine. But in the real world you wouldn’t notice a major difference and both vehicles are a good choice. If you can spend $80k...

[@Coolman2527]

GMC got active fuel management which give them a huge advantage (and yet Ford came pretty close), especially on the highway with cruise control, but other than that with it's 16.4km/100 (city) it's a nightmare, but Expedition on the other hand is a lot more fuel efficient (overall), i currently drive a 2015 Expedition Max for daily (in town) with a full fuel tank it could last me 3 weeks, I bought it in 2015 when it was new, so there's a lot of people saying v6 ecoboost are crap but in the past 4 years of owning this thing I have no issue with engine, transmission what so ever, i dont get why people has been spreading this bs so much, it's super reliable which is why I m trading in for a 2019 model soon. Plus not to mentation this Expedition had a tow package which means it could tow up to 9,200 lbs and for Yukon it could only tow up to 8,100 lbs, so really if you're gonna be towing, do you really wanna risk you towing capacity for 1mpg?

[@DelTalkoh]

Andre and Nathan don't really seem like they mesh that well Nathan just seemed bored and annoyed. It seems like Andre genuinely loves to make these videos, he likes to collect the data and make the analyses and come to a conclusion Nathan and Mr. Truck just seem like they are being tortured when they do these videos.

[@engineeringVirtue]

One buys the expedition for its flexibility, ability to do everything with enough space and power and great luxuries...it's the last vehicle I'd care about towing MPG with.....I love the new expedition redesign, but I'll wait a few more years until they have at least a plugin hybrid capability so that the first 20-50 miles each day will get somewhat decent economics.

[@stinkycheese804]

So you're going to pay $20K MORE for one in order to save $5 a day on gas? Then it will only take 11 years to pay for that, except it probably never will because of the increased complexity leading to repair costs and the interest the money could have been drawing if invested instead. Makes no sense. The power is about towing and short hybrid range in a towing vehicle is just wasted money.

[@theglowcloud2215]

Damn, Andre looks super young here and it was barely 5 years ago.

[@chevyon37s]

Had anybody else started doing the 30 second method when fueling up their own vehicles??

[@zachl5504]

No. I've heard of negatives of filling past the 1st click.

[@cruzmascorro3943]

The first click i wait and fill it up to the dollar 23.00 not 22.59 .

[@TheDaltonmichaels]

i cant imagine a real negative of doing it. I think the whole topping off thing came about when you used to be able to literally fill your tank until you saw fuel in the filler neck and or overflowing the filler neck. In which case on those early models the extra fuel would just end up in a charcoal canister or a vent hose and leak out. If it was completely sealed off and you did this filling to the very very top you could over pressurise the tank when the fuel heats up, more likely to happen in hot weather where the differential in temperature between 20 ft under ground and black top surface temps are massive that could probably cause a number of problems. When im on road trips i normally fill to the very very top full well knowing the vehicle will consume the fuel at a rate higher than the thermal expansion ever could. also its a newer vehicle with a non vented tank. I think the new non vented tanks can only intake air they cannot expel vapors like the old cars.

[@PatrickRich]

You really shouldn't. You can flood the evap line and ruin your evaporative canister. Its just not worth the .5 gallons. I see why they do it here, but I wouldn't make a habit of it.

[@billyhw5492]

You could ruin your evap system, don't do it regularly.

[@ElimitechPest]

I have the same engine in my F-150 and when I go 55 miles per hour my towing MPG goes up to almost 12mpg pulling a 8000lb TT

[@lray801]

Does the Yukon tow in all wheel drive? Because the Expedition does, unless you disable it.

[@sonictech1000]

O/T Today I saw what looked like a Toyota with Michigan plates and it's badgs covered with black tape. It was otherwise undisguised. Any idea if this was some sort of test mule?

[@TheDaltonmichaels]

Everyone hear complaining about the this air not helping the gm V8. It goes both ways you know. Yes thin air means less power. Thins air also means less fuel consumption. And when your only towing 7k you don't need 100% of the power anyway. sure you'd like to have it but its helping MPG so it's not a total loss.

[@Steve-yr5vi]

True; power made is directly proportional to the amount of air and fuel consumed, the monitoring systems on the engine only inject the amount of fuel needed to burn the amount of oxygen present. At a mile high the NA engine is not making full power because less is needed to burn less oxygen present.

[@stinkycheese804]

It gets even better. At higher altitude with thinner air, you don't need as high an octane and can drop down to regular fuel so that cost goes down.

[@bobthomas2812]

Good ole V8, I have heard their are carbon build up problems with the eco boost engines? Can you address that, thanks.

[@two-face1041]

Bob Thomas that doesn’t happen

[@AkioWasRight]

Bob Thomas Supposedly the new generation 3.5L Ecoboost, the port and direct engine, fixes that problem. Still, these new turbo engines have so much blow-by.

[@kennethtruck]

What would you say is a better 7 SEATER SUV vehicles to pull a 9000 LBS food trailer

[@fortunatedad7695]

Not surprised that the smaller engine had to work harder thus using more fuel, but the amount isnt enough to deter me from getting the EcoBoost as I've driven one and wow do they haul ass when you want them too.

[@johns6816]

I think the Yukon XL, being a foot longer may well have improved the aerodynamics of the whole rig. In water, a longer boat hull is faster, air is not too different. The 400# weight savings and the lack of a co-pilot seems trivial since there were no hills and minimal changes of speed.

[@bobforce8317]

Great work! I really wonder what my 2wd 04 Yukon would achieve on that test loop with the smaller V8

[@Jonsellscoolstuff]

Bob Force I'd say 7

[@thomasrossi31]

Hey Guys, is a “V” nose trailer substantially better for MPG’s?

[@Loganlanfear21]

Thomas Rossi its all in aerodynamics but it also depends what you’re towing it behind. It does better than a standard square nose.

[@MB-ke8wy]

For a real comparison since you had the Yukon XL you should have used the Expedition Max to compare a closer weight for each vehicle. But still nice job.

[@vadimnesen8060]

Yea the GM has to be a longer version to seat the third row as comfortable as the regular short expedition

[@karlschauff7989]

Apparently nobody cares because GM sells 3 Suburban/Yukons for every one Expedition. Ford blatantly ripped off the Tahoe/Yukon body styling and still can't win.

[@technom3598]

@@karlschauff7989 are you blind?

[@karlschauff7989]

@@technom3598 No but apparently you are. Ford's 2017 Expedition: uploads.disquscdn.com/images/78b38f12eae337dd9e943c43ace2795cf2246f24f4e877c7c7648abe57d5d7e0.jpg Ford must have like what GM was doing with the 2015+ Yukon's styling: uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5e19398459f3bed94356e74860f9435cab5fe0b6cef5bb072aaabaef3abdd922.jpg Because when Ford came out with the all-new 2018 Navigator, it was a total knockoff of the 2015-2020 GM full-sizers: uploads.disquscdn.com/images/07f0a5171ceef5019820d405888980fb126df14f0451d53d0a48d7a58a4b85d9.jpg Everything from the front quarter panels back is a knockoff of GM's fullsizers.

[@gabbe52501]

Would have been nice to see the expedition EL perform the Yukon Xl

[@Steve-yr5vi]

true, at speeds above 55 aerodynamics play a significant part in fuel efficiency. Correct me if I'm wrong, the longer the vehicle the more laminar the airflow. The longer Yukon is able to create a slightly better "wind tunnel" than the shorter Expedition.

[@davidwelsh829]

The Fords without gas caps are not supposed to be "topped off". They have a complex venting system that can be damaged by overfueling. I am not saying the mpg would be any different, just follow Ford directions pls.

[@djaftermath4313]

I've been wondering about their double click method for awhile now??

[@jerry-381]

Which one did better towing?

[@polustka]

Great True Comparison- not those sticker ratings. Thank you for doing it!

[@Jassman3536]

Good Video TFL. I know their will always be biased people as to what they like or find advantages in the brand they prefer to their view point. I also realize it is tough to get 2 exactly equipped size vehicles so I feel this is a relatively fair test. Too bad Ford doesn't give us an option for the 395hp/400tq 5.0 in the Expedition. I also feel a lower gear ration on the Ford would have yielded better numbers and still outperformed the naturally aspirated GMC. Keep up the good work Guys!!!

[@mr.bluegrass9723]

Really enjoy your very honest test drives ..thank you for your unbiased tests.

[@chevyon37s]

Mr. Bluegrass they're not unbiased. But they do tend to be reasonably fair. When they do the towing tests with new trucks they have a "subjective" section that usually picks a winner by a fair margin and a few of the guys always seem to give the same brand of truck better subjective scores or nit pick and drop huge points for others.... Nathan is the worst offender about this IMO.

[@user-xt1mr6wk8m]

You need to take the fact in that the Yukon XL has a 31 gallon fuel tank, when the short wheelbase expedition has a 23.3 gallon fuel tank and then the expedition will be a lot more friendly than the Yukon.

[@sargenthp]

As a note: Towing with higher rear gear ratios will usually give better MPG's. My '15 Ram 2500 with 3.42 gears would get about 9 MPG towing my camper. My '07.5 Ram 2500 with 3.73 gears would get about 11 MPG towing my camper.

[@anthonywebber2211]

3.42 gets better mileage the 3.73

[@sargenthp]

Anthony Webber... Sure... Empty. Fighting headwinds, hills, and towing. Nope.

[@jimskenadore1791]

If your going to compare. Should have tried the 5.4 L King ranch expedition not the XLT with the larger Denali. Or the shorter GMC.

[@mgp-bct7723]

Loves crape fuel, you guys should test the shell or chevron fuels

[@GeoTrashPanda]

.....also with the higher gearing the multiple displacement could kick in easier with the GM ecotec3.

[@brentvance3958]

Anyone know why they only did a 7000lb trailer and not a normal 9000lb one? Because the GMC can't tow that much, not even close. And yes the Expedition 4x4 max has a 9000lb tow rating.

[@alpal4612]

brent vance they do 7000 for all their towing reviews to keep it consistent as so you can compare trucks from different videos

[@0utrider]

Monster difference between differential gear ratio of the two. The towing capacity has nothing to do with your Ford vs GM war. Another reason, the 7000 pound tandem axle is the most common trailer configuration. 7k equals two common 3500 pound axles.

[@zach4321]

alpal, don't try to give Brent facts that don't make his fanboy brand loyalty opinions hold weight. He doesn't like that.

[@chevyfan8428]

brent vance you do know the gmc can town 8500 pounds. There is no point in saying the Ford can town 500 pounds more because it will cost more in gas in the long run and you will have to hear that annoying v6

[@anthonywebber2211]

brent vance know your facts first Max Trailering (lbs.) - Requires HD Trailering Package (Non-Denali) 8500 lbs

[@Sir.VicsMasher]

Short wheelbase vs long wheelbase. Should of used a LWB version of the Ford/ Lincoln line to go against a LWB Denali XL in a towing test.

[@Eeaotc02]

Now you see why I HATE windy weather. Provides nothing. Great video though!

[@1Pueblito]

Was this in Oklahoma?

[@dzfarms8110]

you guys really need to get the cat scale app

[@jaytrock3217]

Figure that the numbers would be like that even though you say the wind. My friend has Expedition and he tows a boat. He is really disappointed in the MPG he is getting with it even when not towing.

[@alejandroisais634]

Maybe the brands should put a seal on the fuel door of the trucks and SUVs so the dirt stays out and away from the filler.

[@mojorisin7371]

I don't understand why Ford just offers one motor in the Expedition. I'd like to see more engine options like the trucks offer. A 5.0 in the Expedition with 3.55 rear end would be sweet. I guess you have to settle for the F150 for that...

[@brandonm6117]

That wind was insane, my cargo van almost flipped

[@luciousquinctiuscincinnatu8131]

Problem with the new ECOBOOST engines is that they’re not fuel efficient unless you’re crawling along.

[@franciscoarciganolasco6027]

It’s a trap, why not you check it with the expedition l or max?

[@Naginc]

Ah ha...@ 4:01 ...what's the mystery vehicle?

[@dylantraub5952]

Did anyone see that jeep looking thing at 4:00

[@BBXTRAD]

The wheel base on the GM is a foot longer. Use the EXP EL and that would make it fair.

[@TypicalGuy84]

Why didnt they give all the GMC specs in the beginning like they did with the Ford?

[@grandjeep6367]

Good video! Real world results, V8 for the WIN! 🇺🇸👍

[@grandjeep6367]

lat woods, what technology?! 2 MPG LESS?! That's better??! These new cars will last till the manufacturer warranty is over, after that you better save money or buy another one lol...the old V8's still run these days, yeah the body might be all rust but the engine still runs great.

[@grandjeep6367]

All these v6 twin turbos are turned up, forced to try to keep up with a V8, a 5000lbs + vehicle needs real power(V8) not that ecoboost garbage, how long till those engine will crack, blow, break, etc?

[@windrider65]

My new Chevy V8 has no push-rods, and its in a full size van.

[@Steve-yr5vi]

There is no Chevy V8 that doesn't have push rods on the market.

[@thrillseekanz7874]

windrider65 custom one off engine for you? Or does it have cable ties instead of pushrods to save weight?

[@waylinvanhalen]

I still have my 09 fx4 with 5.4 v8 ...pull trailer all the time. ..mileage is anywhere from 7-12 ... conclusion is Gas motors suck fuel when pulling. Ecoboosts haven't made anything more Eco. More turbo power is all. We just got a powerstroke for 52k. Its been averaging 14mpg And these stupid SUVs are 81k lol. Really is highway robbery. But mileage on all new vehicles isn't much better than it was 20 yrs ago ..gotta keep the oil companies going right? Should I keep rambling? Baa

[@stevehostetler6230]

Love u guys don't worry about the ppl that don't know beans from bacon

[@smithjones1906]

Andre it looks like you got in a fight with some chicken wire! 2:10

[@infidel24]

Hard to actually laugh about it, but it's somewhat funny that 91 octane is $2.95 per gallon there and here in Pittsburgh PA that's the cost of reg near me. Crazy gas taxes...Lol

[@DS-TRUCKS]

Come on Ford!!!

[@dam4274]

Most RVers know that the faster you drive, the worst mileage you get. So slow down guys and drive 65! Your mileage is also bad because of the square front trailer. If you had a V-front trailer your mileage would also improve aerodynamically.

[@criscassol6921]

Tengo un ford expedition 2002 con 250000 millas original y camina como nueva y es 5.4 a mi importa la milla me importa como me responde cuando la necesito acelerar

[@jacques2007smith]

We just all gonna ignore the future car at 4:02?

[@gamevoid3684]

4:01 show off car

[@omnipresentvideo7686]

Yukon owners can use their fuel saving to replace their $2000 front shocks every 40k miles. Then their timing cover and oil pans. Then rear shocks. Then rear diff. My shop loves those things. Not a single person at my dealership will buy a GM truck newer than 2014. They are crap. Even the owner has a Navigator that has been trouble free for 70k miles. Its a 2018.

[@Treyk901]

$2.59 per gallon? Dang! It’s $3.05 in Memphis right now.

[@TheTyler456123]

81000 far a Ford?

[@cdawg3506]

Yeah, the new expedition is basically just fords version of a Yukon Denali, so yeah 81k isn't abnormal at all

[@AQDuz]

If ford didn't kill Mercury and made a big Mercury SUV it would be perfect against the GMC Yukon

[@SurelyYewJest]

Ford decided about 15 years ago to position its brand as being a half-ish cut above Chevrolet in terms of quality. So in terms of brand image, Mercury was being assaulted by its Lincoln brother from above, and Ford had also started indirectly attacking from below. Using Mercury as the GMC of FoMoCo still would not have resulted in Mercury existing today, because even if they made it to 2018/2019, we'd still be left with Ford going all SUV/CUV except for the Mustang, and Lincoln doing the same, to say nothing of the comparative evaporation of Mercury's pedigree post-1980, a problem GMC to this day does not have. Mercury was, for all intents and purposes, a dead brand by 2002; the remaining 9 years it fermented were represented by a shrinking stable of figurehead efforts with zero differentiation. Kinda like what's been happening to the Chrysler brand since 2010.

[@mr.aviation6501]

you guys should take the Expidition up gold mine hill please

[@denisep1026]

You guys just added another 200lbs to the Ford test for having Roman ride with Nathan. 200lbs makes a huge difference in MPG. Does it not?

[@jamesbeaman6337]

Probably not as whole lot of difference on this test. But nevertheless, it was done to be fair to the test done with the Yukon, which had both a driver and passenger in it.

[@npsit1]

Not in these vehicles. Yeah, it sure would if you were driving a smart car...

[@stinkycheese804]

No, only the tiniest of vehicles would have much difference from a mere 200 lbs. The vehicles themselves are around 5500lbs plus 7000lb trailer is 12500 lbs. That's only a 1.6% total weight increase.

[@cinder9950]

If fiat made a full size SUV Nathan would wait until there was 90 mph tail wind downhill both ways to do a fair comparison against a chevy.

[@nomorecontent5404]

I'll take the Ford all day long. GMC poor quality for a premium price

[@peterkay2406]

Yep I agree...gmc = garbage

[@cdawg3506]

Yeah

[@mycatumz640]

I'm a GM guy all the way but they should have redone the GM because if you want to show the apples to apples, temperature and barometric pressure will have a significant effect. Sorry all you hardcore ford guys but a tiny V6 just doesn't cut it.

[@fabiandeloa6061]

The new expedition can tow up to 9000lb 😌

[@smlko9751]

THAT GMC STANDS FOR GENAREL MOTORS AND THAT HAS 420 HORSEPOWER 6.2L 10 SPEED ATOMATACK AND BIG V8 ENGINE LIKE A CORVETTE

[@buzzpedrotti5401]

At these prices, I'll rent a truck if I need it, otherwise go without.

[@two-face1041]

Ford slays

[@carguy638]

Eco or boost

[@ericgrau123]

carguy638 That was my experience when I had an ecoboost escape. Exceptional fuel economy with a really light foot. and awesome power with a heavy foot.

[@GeoTrashPanda]

Yeah that fair comparison side the Yukon xl is much bigger class. The regular Yukon or Tahoe would be a fair comparison since it'll be much closer in size. This is why I think you guys are kinda hacks.

[@togodbetheglory9725]

A v8 always is gonna be better.i love de sound of it .but the price of these suvs are crazy

[@brandonlockhart6867]

The gmc has a highway gear 320 the ford has a 373 rear two different animals. People who don’t understand the difference in gears are being missed. I bet the ford will smoke it in a race and up the Ike. It’s hard to say who is better with rears this far apart it’s like a apples and bananas...

[@noniespam]

I would really like to see the comparison apples to apples. You know same gear ratio. Why even test?

[@Th0garr]

I wish premium was 2.95 in illinois where I am, add a dollar to that

[@toptobottom247]

I know for a fact that a Ford or Mercedes Sprinter series vans can do better than that. I'm just not sure about 7, 000 lbs on the Ford van.