When the 2025 Nissan Armada was unveiled a few months ago, it seemed like a much-needed upgrade, but I had some qualms over who might buy it, considering the stronghold the domestic full-sized SUVs have on buyers. However, despite how launching a new full-sized SUV in a saturated market seems like an act of hubris, Nissan might actually be onto something here, provided you don’t go wild with the options.
In case you weren’t keeping track, Nissan has a new Armada full-sized SUV for 2025 and it looks like a big step up from the old one. Gone is the 5.6-liter naturally aspirated V8, replaced by a 3.5-liter twin-turbocharged V6 making 425 horsepower and a whopping 516 lb.-ft. of torque. It also gets a boatload of new available toys including air suspension, massaging front seats, and even a built-in dashcam. For a manufacturer that’s going through a rough patch like Nissan is right now, it seems a little excessive, but based on where pricing starts, it might actually be a smart play.
A base two-wheel-drive Armada SV starts at $58,415 including freight, which actually works out $105 less expensive than the outgoing base model, although all savings come out of the freight charge. Want four-wheel-drive? That’ll cost you an extra $3,000, but it’s optional on most competitors, so that’s fairly apples-to-apples.
Still, here’s a brand new vehicle that’s slightly less costly than the old one, and it comes at a time when almost every competitor is growing more expensive. A base model 2025 Chevrolet Tahoe LS starts at $60,495 including freight, a base model 2025 Ford Expedition Active starts at a whopping $63,695 including freight, and a base model 2025 Toyota Sequoia SR5 kicks things up another notch with a starting price of $64,120 including freight. The base model two-wheel-drive 2025 Jeep Wagoneer is less expensive than the equivalent 2024 model, but it still starts at $61,945 including freight. It almost makes you wonder if you can buy a nicer Armada for what a base any-other-full-size SUV costs.
Well, sort of, but not quite, but it might still be worth it. See, the next Armada trim up from the base SV model, the SL, stickers for $64,865 including freight for the two-wheel-drive model. However, you do get some useful features for that sort of money, including a 360-degree camera system, adjustable lumbar support, heated front seats, a wireless phone charging pad, and a 600-watt Klipsch 12-speaker audio system. That still works out to thousands of dollars cheaper than a comparably equipped competitor, and might be the sweet spot in value.
Alright, what about off-roady trims? You know, ones with knobbly tires, skid plates, and off-road aids aimed at aspiring overlanding families. Well, the Armada Pro-4X with its locking rear differential and air suspension stickers for $75,635 including freight. In the context of a 2025 Ford Expedition Tremor retailing for $83,025, the Armada looks like a good deal, but in the context of the 2025 Chevrolet Tahoe Z71 starting at $70,495, you’ll wonder for a second if the Chevrolet’s the one to have for the money. However, if you want air suspension like the Armada Pro-4X has, along with an electronically controlled limited-slip differential, you’ll need to spec the Off Road Capability package on the Tahoe Z71, which comes bundled in with $7,440 in options. At that point, things are close, so it’s really a case of which full-size SUV you like more.
Alright, what if we go all the way up the trim walk? Well, an Armada Platinum Reserve 4×4 stickers for $81,885 including freight, which is definitely less expensive than an $85,650 Ford Expedition King Ranch, or an $83,195 Chevrolet Tahoe High Country 4×4, or an $85,610 Toyota Tundra Capstone. However, once you crest the $80,000 mark, spending is more discretionary, and value is less of a concern.
Alright, so at the top end of the market, the Armada isn’t the same obvious deal as it is in its lower trims. However, lots of people buy lower trims of vehicles, so maybe Nissan did read the room after all with the Armada. Sure, it’s an expensive, high-margin full-size SUV, but by not being as expensive as its competition, it suggests that even some Tahoe and Expedition buyers might be looking for less expensive, more value-focused alternatives.
(Photo credits: Nissan)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
The 2025 Nissan Armada Is A Huge SUV That Can Tow 8,500 Pounds
-
You Can Rent The Ridiculous House That Jeep And Nissan Used In Its Wagoneer And Armada Photos, But It’s Going To Cost You
-
The 2025 Ford Expedition Gets A Cool Split-Tailgate And A Gloriously Weird Interior You’d Actually Want To Live With
-
The 2025 Chevrolet Suburban And Tahoe Finally Let You Ride On 24s
-
The 2025 Jeep Grand Wagoneer Just Got Up To $7,000 Cheaper, Here’s Why That Might Not Fix Jeep’s Problems
Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
It’s…fine enough I guess? (Considering everything’s a mess)
We need a test drive and some writing about what the interior is like to live with.
Maybe I am missing something, but it appears that the author never actually drove one of these vehicles or the equivalent Infiniti. I’d suggest spending a few hundred miles in one and then revisiting this title.
If I were to spend $60k on car, it’d have to be a hell of a lot better than “not bad”.
Ehh…it’s a Nissan…it’s probably not.
So roughly same prices for a vehicle that will depreciate faster than any of the others? Why is it a good deal?
I couldn’t really find data that said it would depreciate faster than others. From where did you get your source?
from watching used car prices? look on line and you will see. Unlike many/most I like the looks, the Infiniti Beluga whale even more. But most do not. strike one. the build quality is not up to ford or chevy. strike 2. the old V8 got horrendous milage, maybe the new engine will help? so strike 3 maybe. you could also check lease prices, the Nissan should be more due to a lower anticipated residual. this can be affected by $ from the manufacturer, but apples to apples the Nissan has historically had suffered from lower residual value.
I can’t believe that a Tahoe LS starts at $60.5k. How in the f do people justify this cost?
Probably by comparing it to the uninspiring stuff that’s out there around the same price.
V8, BOF, real towing and hauling, well made, reliable…..you could do a lot worse.
Unfortunately, the V8 is going away on this one, but I agree on the other points. Nissan does make a mean SUV (4th gen Pathfinder excluded; it was a minivan whose doors just didn’t slide).
To be clear, I was referring to the Tahoe in the original poster’s question.
I wouldn’t call the Armada well-built or reliable either (it may well be, but prove it).
Making a relative comparison rather than an absolute is a pitfall
How so?
You ask “How do people justify this cost?”, and I say “compared to what?”
I can’t believe a McDonalds meal costs $8.99 now, but it’s still probably the most food for your money.
Because I can find a 2018 Tahoe with 70k miles for $22k on Autotrader within 30 seconds of looking. If we want to start comparisons, let’s compare the person’s finances who saved that $38k and invested it over the next 5-10 years, vs the person who couldn’t go with something used because it’s icky. It’s simply not a good use of money. Or hell, the person who took the $38k and bought a Viper, because they realized that’s actually bang for the buck.
And to your McDonald’s point, it’s absolutely not the most food for your money. Making your own darn lunch is. There are smart uses of money and dumb uses of money. Buying a new, base Tahoe for $60k is dumb.
When most Toyota Siennas are $50k, it doesn’t seem that outlandish unfortunately.
Well it is less ugly than the current one. So there’s that.
Slap a conventional D pillar on there, and the ones with the silver bar across the grille just look like a Tahoe. This thing has lost nearly all of its identity here.
To be fair to the new one, the identity of the old one was mostly “Oh, that’s unfortunate”
The facelift to try to sharpen up the front and rear fascia’s clashed painfully with the swoopy/mushy body lines, and it never felt cohesive. Plus the interior was brutally outdated. At least now it should be roughly comparable to competition for less money, as opposed to being notably worse but with the asterisk of being cheaper.
See I would take ugly over anonymous every time. I agree the interior and powertrain needed the upgrade, but the outside did not need to become entirely forgettable.
That’s fair! At least the last one ditched the truly awful and disjointed styling of the first gen. The curved front half of the cabin slapped onto a boxy rear is still the single worst full-size SUV greenhouse design.
This would be a better deal in 5 years, on the used market; Nissan takes a serious hit on depreciation (and, by then, you’ll know if it’s an earned reputation on this car or not)
Good point, shame that the good off roady bits are so very rare in the used market.