|
|
Comparison Tests
2003 Full-Size SUV Comparison Test
Final Rankings and Scoring Explanation
By Brian Moody
Date Posted 05-13-2003
Final Rankings
| |
Toyota Sequoia |
Ford Expedition |
Chevrolet Tahoe |
| Personal Rating (12.5% of score) |
88.8 |
33.3 |
77.7 |
| Recommended Rating (12.5% of score) |
100 |
55.5 |
44.4 |
| Evaluation Score (25% of score) |
84.1 |
80.0 |
73.8 |
| Feature Content (25% of score) |
50.0 |
46.7 |
43.3 |
| Price (25% of score) |
84.2 |
100 |
91.8 |
|
|
|
|
| Total Score |
78.2 |
67.8 |
67.5 |
| Final Ranking |
1 |
2* |
2* |
| |
|
|
|
| *When calculating the total score, we consider any margin less than 0.5 point a tie. |
Scoring Explanation
Personal Rating: Purely subjective. After the test, each participating
editor was asked to rank the SUVs in order of preference based on which he or
she would buy if money were no object.
Recommended Rating: After the test, each participating editor was asked
to rank the SUVs in order of preference based on which he or she thought would
be best for the average consumer shopping in this segment.
Evaluation Score: Each participating editor ranked every SUV based on a
comprehensive 23-point evaluation. The evaluation covered everything from exterior
design to cupholders. Scoring was calculated on a point system, and the scores
listed are averages based on all test participants' evaluations.
Performance Testing: Each SUV was subjected to a set of performance tests
that measure acceleration, braking and handling through a 600-foot slalom course.
Scores were calculated by giving the best vehicle in each category 100 percent.
Subsequent vehicles were awarded points based on how close they came to the best
performing vehicle's score.
Feature Content: For this category, the editors picked the top 12 features
they thought would be most beneficial to the consumer shopping in this segment.
For each SUV, the score was based on the amount of actual features it had versus
the total possible (12). Standard and optional equipment were taken into consideration.
Price: The numbers listed were the result of a simple percentage calculation
based on the least expensive vehicle in the comparison test. Using the "as tested"
prices of the actual evaluation vehicles, the least expensive vehicle received
a score of 100, with the remaining vehicles receiving lesser scores based on how
much more each one costs.
Note: We were unable to conduct our usual battery of instrumented performance
testing (acceleration, braking and slalom) for all vehicles that competed in this
comparison test, and have adjusted our scoring methodology accordingly.
|
|
|
