2018 Expedition Reviews

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

shane_th_ee

Full Access Members
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Posts
880
Reaction score
676
Location
Seattle
Meaning what? Do you think the standard rear diff is faster or slower?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not a mech E, but in general the higher ratio rear differential will give you quicker low speed acceleration at the cost of a lower top speed (or simply requiring a higher gear for a given speed). And the torque/HP difference between the two trims is pretty negligible. My SWAG would be 0-60 times would be fastest with the 3.73 rear axle (either engine output) and 1/4mile speeds would be fastest with the standard rear axle (either engine output). Again, I'm not a mech e, so I could be all wet on this one...
 

JExpedition07

That One Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Posts
6,530
Reaction score
3,140
Location
New York
I'm not a mech E, but in general the higher ratio rear differential will give you quicker low speed acceleration at the cost of a lower top speed (or simply requiring a higher gear for a given speed). And the torque/HP difference between the two trims is pretty negligible. My SWAG would be 0-60 times would be fastest with the 3.73 rear axle (either engine output) and 1/4mile speeds would be fastest with the standard rear axle (either engine output). Again, I'm not a mech e, so I could be all wet on this one...

There comes a point that with stock gearing, weight, and aerodynamics where the gains stop. At that point you can add all the power you want, but you aren’t gaining any speed. An outdrive Guy was explaining this to me a while back and it’s the closest I can compare to. He put it this way. At a certain point, due to friction against the hull and the stock prop, you can add all the juice you want, but the boat will not run any quicker due to the physics of friction against the hull. And at another point, add too much power and the prop will cavitate effectively losing top end speed. Basically, there comes a point where you can add all the juice in the world, but it won’t make a difference. You can throw a supercharger on the Escalade 6.2L and boost it to infinity if you want, but it will only be marginally quicker than stock, and will still get spanked by a corvette. Physics at a certain point nullify the gains. In the end the vehicle had to overcome the friction of the tire against the road surface and has to “swim” through the air surrounding it to get to speed, and you can only do it so quick even with infinite power. It can only do it as quick as the gears can tranfer the power to the road surface, and as we know too much power and the wheels will break free and stop transferring power to the road, effectively killing the speed. You are limited to how fast your gears and drivetrain can tranfer the power and to the friction the tires have against the road surface, and then how fast the vehicle can travel through the surrounding air. We can’t overcome physics, at a point there is no more gain.
 
Last edited:

edizzle

Full Access Members
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Posts
973
Reaction score
473
Location
Cashiers
I'm not a mech E, but in general the higher ratio rear differential will give you quicker low speed acceleration at the cost of a lower top speed (or simply requiring a higher gear for a given speed). And the torque/HP difference between the two trims is pretty negligible. My SWAG would be 0-60 times would be fastest with the 3.73 rear axle (either engine output) and 1/4mile speeds would be fastest with the standard rear axle (either engine output). Again, I'm not a mech e, so I could be all wet on this one...

correct, 3.73 will get you to 60 quicker. im not sure at what speed that begins to negatively affect the speed through the traps, but i can promise you if your game is 0-60, the taller gears help. as far as standard gearing helping you in the quarter mile, that may or may not be true. it just depends when the transmission/rear end combo run out of use. the 3.73 could potentially give a quicker quarter mile due to the faster 0-60, to many variables to state that as fact. but in principle you are correct
 

edizzle

Full Access Members
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Posts
973
Reaction score
473
Location
Cashiers
There comes a point that with stock gearing, weight, and aerodynamics where the gains stop. At that point you can add all the power you want, but you aren’t gaining any speed. An outdrive Guy was explaining this to me a while back and it’s the closest I can compare to. He put it this way. At a certain point, due to friction against the hull and the stock prop, you can add all the juice you want, but the boat will not run any quicker due to the physics of friction against the hull. And at another point, add too much power and the prop will cavitate effectively losing top end speed. Basically, there comes a point where you can add all the juice in the world, but it won’t make a difference. You can throw a supercharger on the Escalade 6.2L and boost it to infinity if you want, but it will only be marginally quicker than stock, and will still get spanked by a corvette. Physics at a certain point nullify the gains. In the end the vehicle had to overcome the friction of the tire against the road surface and has to “swim” through the air surrounding it to get to speed, and you can only do it so quick even with infinite power. It can only do it as quick as the gears can tranfer the power to the road surface, and as we know too much power and the wheels will break free and stop transferring power to the road, effectively killing the speed. You are limited to how fast your gears and drivetrain can tranfer the power and to the friction the tires have against the road surface, and then how fast the vehicle can travel through the surrounding air. We can’t overcome physics, at a point there is no more gain.

for top speed, yes. for what most of these guys have these cars for no.

i have seen escalades destroy corvettes and the like. and getting a cadillac escalade from 6.2 to 3.3 0-60 would considered more than marginal. a client of mine has a brand new 17 or 18 cadillac escalade HPE1000. it was scary off the line.

Remember the Typhoon/Syclone. It was the quickest production car in the world for several years, besting Ferraris, Corvettes, and Lambos!!!!

it would require 2,000-3,000 horsepower in an all wheel drive SUV to reach the limits you are speaking of.
 

JExpedition07

That One Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Posts
6,530
Reaction score
3,140
Location
New York
for top speed, yes. for what most of these guys have these cars for no.

i have seen escalades destroy corvettes and the like. and getting a cadillac escalade from 6.2 to 3.3 0-60 would considered more than marginal. a client of mine has a brand new 17 or 18 cadillac escalade HPE1000. it was scary off the line.

Remember the Typhoon/Syclone. It was the quickest production car in the world for several years, besting Ferraris, Corvettes, and Lambos!!!!

it would require 2,000-3,000 horsepower in an all wheel drive SUV to reach the limits you are speaking of.

Yes I suppose....... water and land are different beasts. The new vette is like 2.7 seconds 0-60, an SUV of any vintage will never achieve that. I’ll call it impossible. On the same token I’m sure he wasnt running stock tires or gearing, because that speed is not achievable with our stock setups. Wheels would break free and that power could never be applied to the ground with our stock Michelin tires. Our trannies would blow apart and rear ends would tear up. Not to mention with our gearing the power could never be applied that quick anyway. Hence why I say it’s beyond the limitations of our vehicles, they can’t do it. The gains are only marginal on our stock vehicles until you change it from so.
 
Last edited:

edizzle

Full Access Members
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Posts
973
Reaction score
473
Location
Cashiers
To be a stickler!!

Only the 2019 ZR1 corvette has sub 3 second 0-60.

the stock Jeep Trackhawk will do 0-60 in 3.5 or less

the HPE1000 Jeep Trackhawk will do 0-60 in 2.8 seconds!!!!!!!

that is why i am a huge fan of sport SUVs. They absolutely make no sense, but when virtually ANY vehicle short of some hybrid AWD hyper cars can pull up next to you in a Full size 4 door SUV and you literally walk them...............That is pretty badass.
 

shane_th_ee

Full Access Members
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Posts
880
Reaction score
676
Location
Seattle
correct, 3.73 will get you to 60 quicker... the 3.73 could potentially give a quicker quarter mile due to the faster 0-60, to many variables to state that as fact. but in principle you are correct
Glad I wasn't too off. My original point is still that my gut tells me that for 0-60 and 1/4mi times, I think the choice of rear axle is going to have a greater impact than the engine tuning choice.
 

dlcorbett

Full Access Members
Air Force
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Posts
3,086
Reaction score
1,149
Location
tx
Just drove a navi today, wow what a suv. It just oozes luxury. Its rides so pillowy smooth and the seats are great. The screen is fantastic as well.
 

dlcorbett

Full Access Members
Air Force
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Posts
3,086
Reaction score
1,149
Location
tx

JExpedition07

That One Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Posts
6,530
Reaction score
3,140
Location
New York
Car and driver ranked all large suvs, mainstream and luxury, except the land cruiser/lx570 ironicallly, ill let you guys form your opinion on it, but i def dont feel or understand what they wrote:

https://www.caranddriver.com/flipbook/big-hauling-every-full-size-suv-ranked-from-worst-to-best#1

Heres a new review as well:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.auto...18-ford-expedition-review-and-first-drive/amp

Car and driver ranked all large suvs, mainstream and luxury, except the land cruiser/lx570 ironicallly, ill let you guys form your opinion on it, but i def dont feel or understand what they wrote:

https://www.caranddriver.com/flipbook/big-hauling-every-full-size-suv-ranked-from-worst-to-best#1

Heres a new review as well:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.auto...18-ford-expedition-review-and-first-drive/amp

Yea I wouldn't put the Mercedes at number one, they become money pits and fall apart after a few years nor are they big enough. The most luxurious does not make for the best SUV, do the journalists not know what we use them for, they are supposed to be utilitarian not luxurious. Sequoia was underrated, its a very reliable platform, which is what really matters in this segment. I'd put GMC Yukon/Tahoe at #1 for its combo of features yet utility. I'd put Expedition at #2, Sequoia #3, Armada #4. The luxury ones should get bottom of the line simply due to lack of long term reliability/ high cost to own as well as lack of utility use.
 

shane_th_ee

Full Access Members
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Posts
880
Reaction score
676
Location
Seattle
Their criteria is “how nice is the interior?” and “how much does it drive like a car?” By that criteria, I think the rankings are close to spot on. I’d have bought the GLS if that was all I cared about. But I care about how long the thing is going to last, how easy it is to access the third row with car seats installed, etc...
 

dlcorbett

Full Access Members
Air Force
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Posts
3,086
Reaction score
1,149
Location
tx
Their criteria is “how nice is the interior?” and “how much does it drive like a car?” By that criteria, I think the rankings are close to spot on. I’d have bought the GLS if that was all I cared about. But I care about how long the thing is going to last, how easy it is to access the third row with car seats installed, etc...

If they went with the interior and car like ness for their ranking, the gms would be last not so far up. The armada and qx80 would be second and third respectively.
 

JExpedition07

That One Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Posts
6,530
Reaction score
3,140
Location
New York
If they went with the interior and car like ness for their ranking, the gms would be last not so far up. The armada and qx80 would be second and third respectively.

And the thing they seem to forget is, we don't want cars. and agree
 
Last edited:

NyackRob79

Full Access Members
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Posts
355
Reaction score
249
Location
Nyack, NY
Car and Driver should stick to their usual Mustang vs Camaro drivel and leave large trucks to others.
 
OP
OP
gtnator

gtnator

Full Access Members
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Posts
645
Reaction score
180
Location
CO
Their criteria is “how nice is the interior?” and “how much does it drive like a car?” By that criteria, I think the rankings are close to spot on. I’d have bought the GLS if that was all I cared about. But I care about how long the thing is going to last, how easy it is to access the third row with car seats installed, etc...

Did they actually list that criteria you mentioned? I couldn’t find it in the article, which I believe is only really the introductory paragraph plus a paragraph per vehicle, correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OP
OP
gtnator

gtnator

Full Access Members
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Posts
645
Reaction score
180
Location
CO
Kind of cool, in the review he's driving on a frozen lake...

 

rcompart

Full Access Members
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Posts
216
Reaction score
179
Location
IL
Kind of cool, in the review he's driving on a frozen lake...


They should have had that thing trailering an ice house and loaded up with people and ice fishing gear if they were going to give it a credible “frozen lake in Minnesota” review. LOL Could have slalomed between tip-ups. :D
 
Top