: Cadillac Escalade Rated Worst by Forbes?



Franco3000
04-09-10, 02:39 PM
FORBES

If you want to drive something dependable and long-lasting, steer clear of these vehicles.


With a 22% improvement in sales last month, and despite the six-month, $4.3-billion loss it announced Wednesday, General Motors is likely to have its strongest spring and summer in years. Plus, the automaker had critically acclaimed new products at the recent New York Auto Show and the much-anticipated Chevrolet Volt is due out this fall.

More from Forbes.com:

In Pictures: Best Cars for Road Trippers

Navigating Your Way Through Traffic

Cars With the Best Gas Mileage

Year-over-year sales of GM's Cadillac division alone are up almost 76%; sales in the Buick, Chevrolet and GMC divisions were each up more than 40% for March. The industry as a whole was up 24.3%.

Unfortunately just because GM's cars are selling well now doesn't mean they're the best bet for durability or value--yet. It'll take awhile before GM's new direction shows up in tangible new products at the dealership.


Four of the seven vehicles on our list of the worst-made cars on the road come from GM brands. And all of the cars on the list--including Chrysler's Dodge Nitro and Jeep Wrangler--are made by Detroit's Big Three. Only one car on the list is made by Ford Motor (NYSE: F).



Cadillac Escalade

Segment: Luxury SUV
CR Predicted Reliability Score: Fair
CR Value Score: Rated among the worst in value
CR Safety Score: Rated among the worst in safety.
CR Overall Score: 61 out of 100
J.D. Power Dependability Score: 2 out of 5 Power Circles
MSRP: $62,495

I am actually ready to pull the trigger on a 2009 ESV, and then this article came out today. Worst in Safety? I don't get it. Are they referring to roll-over testing? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.

suprego123
04-09-10, 04:18 PM
I have a 2007 Escalade. The only problem I had with the car is the battery. Had it replaced 3 times under warranty. I don't know about its safety factors because I have not crashed it yet.

However, I just crashed my 2000 Lincoln Navigator while driving at 70mph. The front tire blew, and the debris caused the tire tread of the rear tire to come apart. The car went out of control and crashed into the freeway wall. Not a scratch on me but the car is no more. Don't need to say any more about its safety factors.

hcvone
04-09-10, 06:04 PM
It seemed to test pretty well for safety in the government test


http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/menuitem.db847bd57e3dc1f885dfc38c35a67789/?vgnextoid=c95df2905bf54110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCR D&vgnextrefresh=1&ID=8220

escalade kidd
04-09-10, 06:15 PM
Supregeo, I had a dead battery issue with my 07 Denali, would just go dead sometimes. They did a " battery rundown update" to the computer and it solved it. Maybe they did it already and its something else, just thought I'd tell you in case you didn't know about it.

Punmax
04-09-10, 07:30 PM
We are very happy with our Escalade. Escalade > X5, RR, GL

Fast Eddie
04-09-10, 08:02 PM
I have never brought in one of my GM full size trucks for a warranty repair. I am on my second slade, an '08 ESV, and I could not be happier for its perfect reliability. Wish I could say the same for my Mercedes, which I see is rated very high in reliability.

As far as crash worthiness, I don't give a single look at that ridiculous crap. They test the truck against a target of equal size and center of gravity. A mini cooper is tested against a mini cooper sized object. Well, since the ESV is pretty much the biggest consumer vehicle on the road, I think my chances of hitting another is pretty slim. But if I do happen to go head to head with a 5 star Honda or whatever, I will send flowers to the next of kin...

cadmanchris
04-09-10, 08:24 PM
Same here. I feel very safe in my ESV and will not trade it for any other truck.

steve841
04-09-10, 09:58 PM
I think my chances of hitting another is pretty slim. But if I do happen to go head to head with a 5 star Honda or whatever, I will send flowers to the next of kin...


LMAO!!! Now that's funny.

evois
04-10-10, 10:06 AM
and they based the review from? CR? who have no idea about how cars are rated? continuously rating toyota high despite the current failure rates? I use CR when shopping for a lawnmower, dishwasher, washer and drier and ref, that's it.

corvette00
04-10-10, 10:20 AM
It sure seems the media loves to rip on GM, I am not sure how the Escalade could rate poor in safety. I think the enitre Cadillac line is probably one of the safest

PreachRR
04-10-10, 11:19 AM
Yea but have you read.. "that Forbes is worst with escalade owners"?

mdadgar
04-10-10, 05:27 PM
It sure seems the media loves to rip on GM, I am not sure how the Escalade could rate poor in safety. I think the enitre Cadillac line is probably one of the safest

The Escalade is a body-on-frame vehicle. They just plain aren't as safe as a unibody vehicle, all else being equal.

Go do some research on current vehicle design and crash performance - you'll see what I mean.

Unibody has some downsides (damage repair being the big one), but for passenger protection they are just flat-out better performing.

I know my post will result in a bunch of knee-jerk responses from body-on-frame fans who are stuck in the 1970s, but design technology has moved on. They can buy what they want, though. :)

(and yes, I own a 2007 ESV but I'm considering a move to a MBZ GL350 because GM won't give me a friggin' diesel!)

- Mark

SouthernCaddy
04-11-10, 12:10 AM
I truck with a frame is stronger than a unibody car. Why do you think school buses are built with truck frames? Because in a crash they offer the most protection from the drivers compartment. ever wonder why nascar uses a frame race car? how about NHRA? Because they are safer. Period!

lousy_investor
04-11-10, 02:03 AM
I just moved from a 2005 BMW 545i to an Escalade and my insurance premium dropped by 30%. The agent cited number of accidents and the type of injuries suffered by occupants inside an Escalade as being the key reasons. I thought that would be an interesting piece of information to add to this thread. At least the Escalade is safer than a 2005 BMW 545i in the eyes of the insurance companies.

BTW, great forum. A must read for me everyday. Just picked up my 2008 today. Loving it so far but only put on 300km... on the highway it has better mileage than the 545i.. at least based on the fuel economy gauges on both vehicles respectively. None of the wind noise or ride roughness i have seen reported in many reviews. Wonder what people were expecting when they hoped into a truck! :)

North49
04-11-10, 04:17 AM
Well from my understanding the full frame trucks are made for towing. The rigidity is needed for stability and the continual twisting and pulling stresses will make a unitized body look like a pretzel over time.

I must admit that the unitized body crash protection is exceptional as the crumple factor makes a great cushioning effect. Having said that ..... I would just as soon be in my Escalade during a crash. Our full frame battering ram will use up all of the unitized body crumple factor and more. ;)

PS - I think CR blows a lot of smoke. Like most businesses, they say what their sponsoring body tells them to say.

mdadgar
04-11-10, 03:07 PM
I truck with a frame is stronger than a unibody car. Why do you think school buses are built with truck frames? Because in a crash they offer the most protection from the drivers compartment. ever wonder why nascar uses a frame race car? how about NHRA? Because they are safer. Period!

Umm, no.

School buses are body-on-frame because they carry a lot of weight and it's cheaper to build that way. It's not about safety.

The NASCAR argument is hilarious.

North49 has it right - it's about load and cost.

Make up your own mind, but do the research first.

- Mark

evois
04-12-10, 12:39 AM
I can't believe it is in yahoo's front page.

kars79
04-12-10, 02:00 PM
I just saw it at the front page of the yahoo too.
Now my friends gonna call me and give me a hard time.

Franco3000
04-12-10, 05:06 PM
I just saw it at the front page of the yahoo too.
Now my friends gonna call me and give me a hard time.

It has been front page for three days now. Anyhow, I will still bite.

fatboy98
04-12-10, 06:30 PM
I am less concerned with Forbes' report than I am with getting into the second row seat of an ESV at the NY Auto show and realizing that - unlike my wife's $25k Honda Pilot - the seats do not move fore and aft. For 70-large, shouldn't they?

I like the Escalade and think it's the best looking large SUV out there so I don't mean to offend any of you owners. In fact, I had a great deal on an almost-new '07 around Christmas of '08 but waited too long to pull the trigger. This report - and my wife being surprised that the ESV is not hugely more spacious (except for its much better width) than her Pilot - did not help my case for getting lots more bling in a family truckster. Is there a good sales pitch out there to help me?

Franco3000
04-12-10, 08:15 PM
I have a MB GL450 for 7 passengers (similar in size to the Pilot), and the Escalade is still more spacious in the rear trunk, but I also have four kids, so I use all my seats. As far as a selling point suggestions. I'd say better looks than the Honda Pilot, more power (you need that when merging into freeways, its a safety issue =-)), more space in the trunk, unless your third row seats in the pilot are down all the time, then you argument is weaker, however,when the third row seat is up you have very little room in the back, this is where the Escalade wins. If all that fails, then resort to you looking more manly if and when you drive the Escalade.

SouthernCaddy
04-12-10, 10:16 PM
Umm, no.

School buses are body-on-frame because they carry a lot of weight and it's cheaper to build that way. It's not about safety.

The NASCAR argument is hilarious.

North49 has it right - it's about load and cost.

Make up your own mind, but do the research first.

- Mark

why is the nascar argument so funny? they are built for saftey. yes a unibody car will crumple around the driver. I know I had a friend trapped in one that caved in on him. And as for the school buses the body on frame is about safety frist that is why the raised floor. I am going to stay with a truck with a frame and I believe I will come out ahead in a head on with a unibody. If the escalade ever goes unibody I will look somewhere else. This debate has been going on for along time.

Fast Eddie
04-12-10, 10:23 PM
I am less concerned with Forbes' report than I am with getting into the second row seat of an ESV at the NY Auto show and realizing that - unlike my wife's $25k Honda Pilot - the seats do not move fore and aft. For 70-large, shouldn't they?

I like the Escalade and think it's the best looking large SUV out there so I don't mean to offend any of you owners. In fact, I had a great deal on an almost-new '07 around Christmas of '08 but waited too long to pull the trigger. This report - and my wife being surprised that the ESV is not hugely more spacious (except for its much better width) than her Pilot - did not help my case for getting lots more bling in a family truckster. Is there a good sales pitch out there to help me?

Why would you need those middle rows seats to move front/back? There is so much room in both rows they do not need to move (I'm 6'5" and I have a ton of room in the middle row). I also could fit a Honda Pilot in the back of my truck. My neighbor has one. He borrows my ESV ever time he goes to Depot to pick up stuff....

evois
04-12-10, 10:59 PM
I am less concerned with Forbes' report than I am with getting into the second row seat of an ESV at the NY Auto show and realizing that - unlike my wife's $25k Honda Pilot - the seats do not move fore and aft. For 70-large, shouldn't they?

I like the Escalade and think it's the best looking large SUV out there so I don't mean to offend any of you owners. In fact, I had a great deal on an almost-new '07 around Christmas of '08 but waited too long to pull the trigger. This report - and my wife being surprised that the ESV is not hugely more spacious (except for its much better width) than her Pilot - did not help my case for getting lots more bling in a family truckster. Is there a good sales pitch out there to help me?

I have a honda pilot as well as an escalade hybrid. from first looking, the escalade doesn't look that humongous but go take the rear seat and sit for a good few minutes and you will notice that the escalade has a bigger and spacious area than the pilot. if you are looking at the ESV, it is even bigger and comfortable to sit 7. the headroom of the pilot makes it look deceivingly bigger but it is not.

airhammer
04-13-10, 12:31 AM
why is the nascar argument so funny? they are built for saftey. yes a unibody car will crumple around the driver. I know I had a friend trapped in one that caved in on him. And as for the school buses the body on frame is about safety frist that is why the raised floor. I am going to stay with a truck with a frame and I believe I will come out ahead in a head on with a unibody. If the escalade ever goes unibody I will look somewhere else. This debate has been going on for along time.

It's funny bc a nascar is in no way a body on frame. It's a roll cage on wheels wrapped in fiberglass.

Trucks and busses are body on frame primarily for their versatility and economy of manufacture as well as their load carrying capability. The escalade body sits on the GMT900 frame which is used for numerous other truck and suv models so it's a lot cheaper to produce than a one off unibody escalade would be.

Nevertheless, when it comes to accidents I'd rather be in a 3 ton escalade than any unibody car or suv on the road.

mdadgar
04-13-10, 12:56 AM
It's funny bc a nascar is in no way a body on frame. It's a roll cage on wheels wrapped in fiberglass.

Exactly.


Trucks and busses are body on frame primarily for their versatility and economy of manufacture as well as their load carrying capability. The escalade body sits on the GMT900 frame which is used for numerous other truck and suv models so it's a lot cheaper to produce than a one off unibody escalade would be.

Exactly.


Nevertheless, when it comes to accidents I'd rather be in a 3 ton escalade than any unibody car or suv on the road.

Here's why you want to be in a unibody vehicle:

http://www.iihs.org/50th/default.html

Watch the video on the right-hand side. Notice how the passenger compartment of the Bel Air completely collapses in the impact and the Malibu's doesn't. That's because the body (ie passenger compartment) in a body-on-frame vehicle isn't structural. It's basically an outhouse sitting on a flatbed.

Anyway, translation: the Bel Air's driver is dead and the Malibu's isn't.

Technology has moved on from the body-on-frame. Really. It has.

But again, buy what you want and make the trade-offs you need to. Just don't ignore the facts in the process.

- Mark

airhammer
04-13-10, 07:48 AM
Well Mark, that's it, I'm not buyin a 59 Chevy. They're death traps. To be equally misleading, I'd like to see a frontal impact video of my old old unibody 72 beetle against my escalade. Both body on frame as well as unibody design have benefited greatly from safety engineering so what you're really seeing in that clip is far more the advancement of passenger compartment safety engineering than a demo of the difference between body on frame and unibody construction. For example, the 59s driver door pops right off and the 09s door locks in place when compressed. That makes a huge difference in how the passenger compartment deforms. That is not a function of whether it's body on frame or not, but more a function of how the doors are designed and reinforced in modern vehicles. Similarly misleading would be a video of that 09 malibu slamming into a dump truck whereupon you might conclude that it's safer to buy a car with a fiberglass body shell. Would that mean that corvettes are safer?

If you ran that 09 mailbu into the front of an 09 escalade I'm going to guess that the greater mass of the escalade plus the higher center of mass are going to result in a greater deformation of the passenger compartment in the malibu.

Just sayin that unibody construction isn't the only factor or even the most important factor in crash safety engineering.

mdadgar
04-13-10, 03:27 PM
Just sayin that unibody construction isn't the only factor or even the most important factor in crash safety engineering.

Crash energy channelling and absorption, which unibodies do far better than body-on-frame, is absolutely the most important factor in crash safety engineering.

But either you review the data and understand that or you don't.

In either case, we all get the make our own calls on this.

Some people still think carbs are superior to fuel injection, too. :)

- Mark

Fast Eddie
04-14-10, 10:18 PM
Crash energy channelling and absorption, which unibodies do far better than body-on-frame, is absolutely the most important factor in crash safety engineering.

But either you review the data and understand that or you don't.

In either case, we all get the make our own calls on this.

Some people still think carbs are superior to fuel injection, too. :)

- Mark

So one question, two trucks collide head on- one a new ESV the other an RX350. If you had to be, which one would you be in?

drditty
04-14-10, 10:37 PM
I just moved from a Audi Q7 (rated "safest vehicle in America") to an ESV. The quality is not too different, the Q7 had plenty of plasticy pieces, rattles, major repairs and little trim pieces that break. I understand the science behind crash test statistics, and the unibody thing, but the ESV just "feels" like the one I'd rather be in for an accident. I realize that this is not scientific, and probably has a lot to do with the visual mass and heavier ride characteristics of the ESV. I find that the ESV is driven differently as well. The Q7 has a more car like feel when driving, so I would enter curves faster, etc. In terms of the adjustment of the second row seats, this is a total non issue! The smaller cars have this so that the third row passengers can have a tiny bit of floor space for their feet if the second row is moved all the way forward. Nobody was every happy with that arrangement. Our family was happy in the Denali XL, unhappy for three years in the Q7, and is now happy again in the ESV :)

mdadgar
04-14-10, 10:46 PM
So one question, two trucks collide head on- one a new ESV the other an RX350. If you had to be, which one would you be in?

The real question is: if I could be in a body-on-frame ESV or a unibody ESV in an accident, which would I choose?

The answer is unibody.

- Mark

suprego123
04-15-10, 12:17 AM
The real question is: if I could be in a body-on-frame ESV or a unibody ESV in an accident, which would I choose?

The answer is unibody.

- Mark

But we don't have a unibody ESV. If we do, then the ESV will be crown king of SUV again.

I think the whole article was pointing at the rollover tendency of a large SUV.

Most people in this forum are talking about head-on collision. But in a real world collision between a unibody, bi-body, or tri-body RX350 vs the ESV, always remember high school physics for conservation of momentum and transfer of momentum. In such a collision, the unibody gas-saver will probably becomes the flat-body, while the ESV will most likely retain its basic shape. Pay attention to the auto makers small prints on their ads. "No technology will overcome the basic laws of physics."

mdadgar
04-15-10, 01:50 AM
Most people in this forum are talking about head-on collision. But in a real world collision between a unibody, bi-body, or tri-body RX350 vs the ESV, always remember high school physics for conservation of momentum and transfer of momentum. In such a collision, the unibody gas-saver will probably becomes the flat-body, while the ESV will most likely retain its basic shape. Pay attention to the auto makers small prints on their ads. "No technology will overcome the basic laws of physics."

I think you're incorrect here, as there are two factors at play:

1) momentum, and the conservation thereof (that's what you refer to)
2) the ability for the vehicle to deform and absorb energy instead of transmitting it to the occupants. That's the part that you miss and where a unibody far exceeds a body-on-frame.

Remember, the frame is about 10" tall. Everything above that (ie where you sit) is non-structural. That's bad at absorbing impact energy.

In answer to the previous poster (now that I have more time), comparing an Escalade (a full-size SUV) to an RX350 (a mid-size SUV) is apples to oranges.

The real comparison would be an Escalade (non-ESV) to a Mercedes GL. The are almost identical in size, weight and price.

That would be a no-brainer for me safety-wise. I'd pick the GL every time.

- Mark

evois
04-15-10, 10:19 AM
from nhtsa website. a very safe SUV indeed.


http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/menuitem.db847bd57e3dc1f885dfc38c35a67789/?vgnextoid=c95df2905bf54110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCR D&vgnextrefresh=1&ID=7731

Fast Eddie
04-15-10, 11:02 AM
I think you're incorrect here, as there are two factors at play:

1) momentum, and the conservation thereof (that's what you refer to)
2) the ability for the vehicle to deform and absorb energy instead of transmitting it to the occupants. That's the part that you miss and where a unibody far exceeds a body-on-frame.

Remember, the frame is about 10" tall. Everything above that (ie where you sit) is non-structural. That's bad at absorbing impact energy.

In answer to the previous poster (now that I have more time), comparing an Escalade (a full-size SUV) to an RX350 (a mid-size SUV) is apples to oranges.

The real comparison would be an Escalade (non-ESV) to a Mercedes GL. The are almost identical in size, weight and price.

That would be a no-brainer for me safety-wise. I'd pick the GL every time.

- Mark

It has been quite a few years since I took physics but I do remember a few tidbits. Mass and velocity. When an object of larger mass hits an item of smaller mass, if velocities are the same, the smaller item will absorb significantly more energy. That is, the ESV will transfer a great deal of it's crash energy to the other vehicle. The GL would have to absorb that energy in addition to the energy it is producing, the ESV will have to absorb less energy than it is producing. If they tested all cars against an ESV sized vehicle then virtually no one would get over one star.

Your comment makes it sound like the ESV was developed in the 60's. It has crumple zones, airbags, high strength steel and many other safety features. The frame is quite a bit taller than 10" off the ground.

The real risk in a truck the size of the ESV is rollover. These risks have been largerly overplayed by the media, except for the embarrassing situation facing the GX460. 95% of all rollover incidents nationwide are caused by 'tripping' (source: NHTSA). SUV's are more prone to tripping b/c of their higher center of gravity. This was often caused by people going to hard into corners and having the rear end (or front) slide out into a curb causing the trip. Modern stability control systems have made this very difficult to do now (hence the issue with the GX)...

In no way am I saying that the GL is unsafe, frankly it is probably one of the safest (and ugliest) trucks on the road. If I could get past the horrible looks and the fact that at $68,000+ you don't get LEATHER or HID's I would consider it. I just can't spend $70k on a truck and get vinyle seats...

Gigantor
04-15-10, 01:01 PM
I have a 2008 Escalade AWD with 12,000 miles with
no issues, I have been fortunate with never getting
a vehicle coming off the assembly line on a Monday
or Friday.

I am very happy with my Lade

gmercedesbenz
02-12-11, 12:07 PM
Exactly.



Here's why you want to be in a unibody vehicle:

http://www.iihs.org/50th/default.html

- Mark

I'm neutral in this arguement, but this video is absoutely incredible. 50 years of R&D....look how far we've come in terms of safety. I'm in my early 20's, and seeing a video like this honestly scares me a little to think of what crashes must have been like in the '50s. Glad I live in this time :duck: