2018 Expedition Reviews
- Thread starter gtnator
- Start date
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.
Only thing i didnt agree with was their quietness rating. I find the quietness one of the expys best attributes. I find it funny that on it's own the expy is scored lukewarm to good and always lower than the nav. However, compared directly to it's competitors, its always reviewed highly favorably but the nav is compares less so directly with its competitors. Also, the ccd is lauded here but less so by experts. Actually, all expys with no ccd is lauded for its ride and handling balance in all comparisons(motortrend, motorweek, cars.com)
Those #s are not that far from what I got on my 99 Cobra back then.. sheesh.
Car and Driver test both the long and short Expedition Platinum's and got 5.9/14.6 and 5.7/14.4 0-60/quarter mile times respectively. The Navigator times are the exact same as my 99 BMW 540i.
https://www.caranddriver.com/review...ving-impressions-review-car-and-driver-page-4
https://www.caranddriver.com/review...ving-impressions-review-car-and-driver-page-4
shane_th_ee
Full Access Members
For what it's worth, the trucks in their photo gallery appear to have the 3.73 rear axle...
JExpedition07
That One Member
Car and Driver isn’t always that accurate on their 0-60 times. Look at the Nissan Armada, they say 5.9 sec, no way! The 5.6 is a good engine but with 2.93 or whatever axle ratio and 7 speed it’s not propelling to 60 in 5.9 sorry, they botched it.
Last edited:
In the motortrend comparo, the armada matched the expy 0 to 60 at 6.4 sec and beat it in the quarter mile. Also, the qx80 has beem clocked at 5.8 as well, but i dnt remember which publication measured that time.
aggiegrad05
Full Access Members
EDIT, numbers jumping around...move along nothing to c here.
aggiegrad05
Full Access Members
I can't agree with much of the tone of this article. I am good with most of the "cons" though.
I think the makers have just over-designed themselves into problems that I just never want to own or risk owning.
I really don't think they care about as much as we do. Their only goal is to sell cars and have fewest warranty issues fewest recalls and lawsuits. That's really it. Isn't it??
I would have never even considered some of the ways they have gone on these newer vehicles because I focus on longevity of the vehicle and working 100 correctly for all of its owners for at least 15 years.
Some people...heck I think most people...only buy new cars so all the manufacturer has to worry about it comfort and convenience for 3-4 years.
Isn't this what the auto industry had come to???
Twin turbos? You got to be kidding me...isn't there a text thing for that. YGTBKM
Is that it? I think I'd use a stronger one for this though.
The twin turbo Supra was ok. But they didn't even want or need twin turbos on the worlds fastest Buick Grand National. V-6 huge car, SINGLE TURBO faster than the twin that other tried.
Hardly anybody buying suvs need a lot of hp. I would say the majority never tow anything with them.
But yet they make EVERY buyer have 400-450 hp or whatever they have now.
AND it gets 19 on highway they said!!!!!
Aluminum body, is it body on frame, smaller engine (lighter?), 10 sp trans (I'll get started on this later!!!), .......AND it still only gets 2-3 mpg better than my 2001 with a 5.4 plain old old school engine??
I forgot to add why can't they give us a wimpy little weaker engine one for those who want a big vehicle but don't tow anything. I don't want a CRV or anything smaller than a Trailblazer (yes I'm stuck in 2000ish) but I don't need power.
The trailblazer is overpowered for me but any smaller engine...NOPE Big fat NOPE!
The old chevy and ford trucks adn SUVs (some years) had 4 cyl and 6 cyl engines. Then the Durangos had mostly v8s. Could you get a durango with the v6 that was is the Same body pick up? "I don't think so..WHY NOT!!
You could take a 1st gen Exp shave some weight off of it, put a 3.23 in the rear heck I'd be ok with a 3.08, even put a V6 in it if for had any good old V6s back them. The 3.8 sucked.
But a couple of mods to a 1st gen would have gotten the same mileage as this new one.
10 sped transmissions. Is this the future. I mean the present.
What will these you know whats at the transmission shop charge to rebuild one of those.
I WILL PASS.
I see these new vehicles and think I will want no part of them when they are 10-12+ years old when I like to buy them.
Will these things even be around?
I keep reading we are leaving or have already left the golden years of engines improving and lasting 225K+ very easily.
We have been so trained and conditioned as comsumers to "old with the old, in with the new" that we accept the planned obsolescence that they give us.
Saddens me greatly.
Last edited:
shane_th_ee
Full Access Members
Ford does make something called a transit connect. Pretty much exactly what you describe above. You should go hang out on their forums and leave this one for people who want or need big, powerful, modern, albeit expensive, SUVs. People like me who loves the twin turbos and the 10 speed transmission largely because over half the miles on my expedition have been with a trailer behind it.
Nah, pretty much just leave this thread as I get along fine in the other areas of this thread or people are fixing asking questions about 2000 to 2008. After I posted I did go back and read every Post in this entire thread and it's obvious that everyone here is excited about new vehicles and embrace new designs and Technology. Very few in this thread are pining for the big old V8 torque. In other threads on the same form it comes up all the time with people's preference for the old school V8 and not Turbos. I still see no reason to have twin turbos because you can do everything you need to do with just one turbo. And as I mentioned every performance application I've seen 1 turbo will actually beat two turbos every time.
But beat is a relative term because I'm referring to turbos being used for high speed quarter mile drag racing only. When you get into using turbo and increasing torque on engines for towing capacity and ease of maintaining speed up hills with loads turbos are still great but it is a different ball game man drag racing a 1/4 Mile.
There are plenty of people out there that love big comfortable SUVs that would prefer not to have one and especially not two turbos that will certainly need to be replaced long before the car goes to the junkyard. Lots of people who buy SUVs don't need powerful SUVs.
Tons of people just like the look and the room or the inside passenger or cargo carrying ability. It seems ridiculous to some of us that they are fighting with SUVs to see who can go 0 to 60 in 5.2 seconds. Many people don't care if it takes 11 seconds to get to 60 in an SUV. I'm one of those. The sad part is they don't give us a lot of options.
If you want to get the new super fast Jeep and go 0 to 60 in 3.5 seconds that's fine. That's a high-performance drag car in an SUV body. But when the base model SUVs are already so fast and powerful, it's overkill for so many people.
It's just frustrating it has been for years in the car market. They say different strokes for different folks but we don't have the options that maybe we used to or that we should.
If we were making the Expedition back in the 80's and 90's there should be a model with a straight-6 200 in it is my point. A big turd and it should also be available with a manual transmission if someone wants it.
I mean, some would say this would increase prices but geez, look at look at where the prices already are!! A lot of people with the okay without the thousands of dollars of high-tech connectivity things. I think I read someone mentioned recently that these newer Vehicles like these have you know the $10,000 Wi-Fi internet of things connectivity upgrade. I wonder how much of a joke they were making or how accurate that is?
It's great that there are 65 and $70,000 and up vehicles that are current cutting-edge technology that have every convenience auction you could imagine, all the safety almost driving itself features, and are super fast for people like you who want them. But for others who want basically a slightly upgraded four door Bronco or Ramcharger there's not much left today.
That's why these people are buying 98-04 Durangos. It's like the exact perfect vehicle four people that don't want all the bells and whistles are speed. If they would have made more with the smaller V6 engine as an option they would have covered the full spectrum.
I’m a bit confused as to who and what you are upset at? The car maker for making a car that consumers are buying but doesn’t meet your needs or the consumers for buying cars that makes the car manufacturer make cars that don’t meet your needs?
Smaller tubo’d engines versus bigger NA will be a debate that rages on but like everything else in life it’s a set of compromises. Big V8 easy power, long lasting proven technology. That GM are continuing to refine and improve theirs and keeping up with more “modern” technology is, quite frankly, amazing. But your average non-mechanically inclined/sympathetic driver doesn’t care. The 2 small turbos get the toque flowing at low down revs with no lag and allow even the most modest driver tap and access 90% of the available power easily with no drama or even medium to high revving of the engine. As a previous owner of a 3v Triton, great engine once it stopped launching spark plugs into orbit, but ****** it was noisy when towing.
As for the overkill on HP I am smiling at that, coming from Europe where a 2.2 IL4 was considered a big engine and 3.0 was serious performance territory. Move to North America and the soccer Moms drive 4.0L V6 7 seaters and 25 MPG is considered awesome. But hey, it’s all about accelerating down the on ramp right? Except for the idiots who try to merge a ½ the speed of traffic on the interstate.
But we want everything, big roomy people carrier, big towing capability, big performance (name me a Gen 4 Expedition owner who hasn’t had a smug grin on their face after dusting a car that expected to trounce them from the lights). We want bells and whistles, to quote Queen “I want it all, I want it all, I want it all, and I want it now”
I agree with your options point, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of engine options and I assume Ford thought a twin turbo 3.5 would strike a balance for people wanting less power and better economy by using a light foot and people wanting more power and to hell with economy by pressing the foot down a bit more. But at a fixed purchase cost for both camps so arguably no one is happy.
The 2.7 ecoboost and V8 added to the range might satisfy all, but I suspect the manufacturing costs of adding 2 more engines to the line-up would eat up the savings on the smaller engine and push the bigger engine into really expensive territory. Maybe.
To your final paragraph, you could look outside the North America box at something like the Hyundai Palisade. 3.3 or 3.8 v6 engines, fantastic build quality, warranty, dealer servicing and customer care.
https://www.autotrader.ca/expert/20181128/preview-2020-hyundai-palisade/
Smaller tubo’d engines versus bigger NA will be a debate that rages on but like everything else in life it’s a set of compromises. Big V8 easy power, long lasting proven technology. That GM are continuing to refine and improve theirs and keeping up with more “modern” technology is, quite frankly, amazing. But your average non-mechanically inclined/sympathetic driver doesn’t care. The 2 small turbos get the toque flowing at low down revs with no lag and allow even the most modest driver tap and access 90% of the available power easily with no drama or even medium to high revving of the engine. As a previous owner of a 3v Triton, great engine once it stopped launching spark plugs into orbit, but ****** it was noisy when towing.
As for the overkill on HP I am smiling at that, coming from Europe where a 2.2 IL4 was considered a big engine and 3.0 was serious performance territory. Move to North America and the soccer Moms drive 4.0L V6 7 seaters and 25 MPG is considered awesome. But hey, it’s all about accelerating down the on ramp right? Except for the idiots who try to merge a ½ the speed of traffic on the interstate.
But we want everything, big roomy people carrier, big towing capability, big performance (name me a Gen 4 Expedition owner who hasn’t had a smug grin on their face after dusting a car that expected to trounce them from the lights). We want bells and whistles, to quote Queen “I want it all, I want it all, I want it all, and I want it now”
I agree with your options point, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of engine options and I assume Ford thought a twin turbo 3.5 would strike a balance for people wanting less power and better economy by using a light foot and people wanting more power and to hell with economy by pressing the foot down a bit more. But at a fixed purchase cost for both camps so arguably no one is happy.
The 2.7 ecoboost and V8 added to the range might satisfy all, but I suspect the manufacturing costs of adding 2 more engines to the line-up would eat up the savings on the smaller engine and push the bigger engine into really expensive territory. Maybe.
To your final paragraph, you could look outside the North America box at something like the Hyundai Palisade. 3.3 or 3.8 v6 engines, fantastic build quality, warranty, dealer servicing and customer care.
https://www.autotrader.ca/expert/20181128/preview-2020-hyundai-palisade/
I think it does boil down to the multiple options would cut out the cost savings which means raise prices.
Not everyone wants it all though. Many people have no concern and I would venture to say that actually most people have no concern and don't even know the towing capacity of their SUV. This is the case whether it's a first generation Escape , a 2012 Explorer, or a brand new Expedition.
I will say when you get into the larger Expeditions and when we had the Excursions, more people that buy our own those do you need higher towing capacities so they are aware. I think most people that could care less about Towing would opt for an Explorer over an expedition.
There are many though that simply like the larger size of the Expedition and in the early generations you did not have third row seating in the Explorers.
I also have never really believed that just because vehicles sell means that they are exactly or even really close to what people want.
If it's time to buy a new car you have to buy what the manufacturers are making. I really think they do a poor job I've known about the market wants. Look at the second row seat options with jumper seat vs center console in the 1st and 2nd generation Expeditions and Navigators. Look at the percentages. Isn't it something like the vast majority of expeditions had the jumper seat so three people in the second row and it seems Navigators hardly. Now I'm seeing the newer Navigators have gone back typically having the three person seat in the second row. Do you think people's wants or desires changed? I don't. If people want them now and Ford has realized that, then people wanted them back then l. Ford just wasn't on top of things and smart enough to know what people wanted.
So once again, I think for me it boils down to being upset there aren't more options but then as we decided that boils down to being because of costs.
Not everyone wants it all though. Many people have no concern and I would venture to say that actually most people have no concern and don't even know the towing capacity of their SUV. This is the case whether it's a first generation Escape , a 2012 Explorer, or a brand new Expedition.
I will say when you get into the larger Expeditions and when we had the Excursions, more people that buy our own those do you need higher towing capacities so they are aware. I think most people that could care less about Towing would opt for an Explorer over an expedition.
There are many though that simply like the larger size of the Expedition and in the early generations you did not have third row seating in the Explorers.
I also have never really believed that just because vehicles sell means that they are exactly or even really close to what people want.
If it's time to buy a new car you have to buy what the manufacturers are making. I really think they do a poor job I've known about the market wants. Look at the second row seat options with jumper seat vs center console in the 1st and 2nd generation Expeditions and Navigators. Look at the percentages. Isn't it something like the vast majority of expeditions had the jumper seat so three people in the second row and it seems Navigators hardly. Now I'm seeing the newer Navigators have gone back typically having the three person seat in the second row. Do you think people's wants or desires changed? I don't. If people want them now and Ford has realized that, then people wanted them back then l. Ford just wasn't on top of things and smart enough to know what people wanted.
So once again, I think for me it boils down to being upset there aren't more options but then as we decided that boils down to being because of costs.
shane_th_ee
Full Access Members
The other issue with adding a V8 option is likely packaging. In general the V8 will be longer than the V6 which means you'll have to lengthen the vehicle (adding yet more weight in addition to the extra weight of the V8*) or move the firewall aft and shrink the passenger compartment...
*And that extra weight is going to come straight off the payload as well as all the other associated issues with additional weight...
Last edited:
Similar threads
