Ford Inside News banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/co...219_378764.htm

The Good: Great interior build quality, macho looks, cavernous interior
The Bad: Deplorable gas mileage, conspicuously large
The Bottom Line: Large, and largely irrelevant
Reader Reviews

View Slide Show
Up Front


The 2007 Expedition is likely the best mega-SUV ever to come out of Ford's factories. The number of standard features is up, the base price is down, and—thanks to a host of new technologies—safety is much improved. Unfortunately, this better-than-ever Expedition comes at a time when gargantuan gas-guzzlers couldn't be more irrelevant to most
consumers.

High gas prices last year chilled sales of truck-based SUVs. According to Automotive News, Expedition sales fell 23.6% last year, to 87,203. Sales were so bad across both the Expedition and Explorer badges, in fact, that Ford's (F) game plan for the foreseeable future consists of building so-called crossover vehicles, like its newly released Edge, which looks like an SUV but rides on a car platform.

The company ceased production on the larger-than-life Excursion in 2005—even before last year's runup in fuel prices, consumers just found the thing too big. In the meantime, Ford has tried to make the best of a bad situation, styling the refreshed Expedition to mirror the still-popular F-Series pickup and bringing the base price down to an attractive $29,995.
The interior is capacious beyond belief and well-appointed. Still, even with three vast rows of seating and an impressive 9,000 lbs. of towing capacity, it's hard to make a case for buying into this giant.

My test vehicle, the 4x4 Eddie Bauer Expedition, has a base price of $38,475. Options were plentiful, including $1,595 all-season tires, $795 second row captain's chairs, $100 skid-plate package, $45 daytime running lamps, $950 power moon roof, $675 convenience package, $55 rubber floor mats, $350 trailer tow, $1,995 navigation, $495 power-lift gate, $195 satellite radio, $485 load-leveling suspension, $625 climate-controlled seats, $1,500 rear-seat entertainment, and—phew—$75 chrome exhaust pipe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
There are people who still need such vehicles, and money is not always an issue:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
764 Posts
The Expedition is the best of the biggest SUVs, although the Tahoe/Suburban put up a pretty good fight. The Expedition is also quite a bit cheaper, which makes it even more appealing. Now it needs a small diesel, and it would be perfect.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
615 Posts
You know what is really funny about all of this hoopla over how big SUV produce so much pollutants and cause so much damage to the environment?

It is the fact that the 5 to 7 year old Honda Accords and 10 to 20 year old Volvos that these "environmentalists" drive actully produce more pollutants than the modern Ford Expedition or even in some cases the "King of Excess"...the Hummer H2.

Modern SUVs like the 2007 Ford Expedition benefit from great advances in emissions control and particulate filters. They are also vastly more fuel efficient than previous generations while at the same time causing less damage to the environment than say the original Chevrolet K-Blazers of the 70s or the Ford Broncos of the 80s.

Honestly, if you have a need for an SUV of this size...then buy one. That is why they are made. If you don't...then perhaps a Ford Fusion is more to your liking? If you really want to criticize Auto Manufacturers for poor fuel economy and waste...talk to the folks at Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati, and the rest of the Super Luxury crowd. Their vehicles get far worse fuel economy than any Ford Expedition!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
You know what is really funny about all of this hoopla over how big SUV produce so much pollutants and cause so much damage to the environment?

It is the fact that the 5 to 7 year old Honda Accords and 10 to 20 year old Volvos that these "environmentalists" drive actully produce more pollutants than the modern Ford Expedition or even in some cases the "King of Excess"...the Hummer H2.

Modern SUVs like the 2007 Ford Expedition benefit from great advances in emissions control and particulate filters. They are also vastly more fuel efficient than previous generations while at the same time causing less damage to the environment than say the original Chevrolet K-Blazers of the 70s or the Ford Broncos of the 80s.

Honestly, if you have a need for an SUV of this size...then buy one. That is why they are made. If you don't...then perhaps a Ford Fusion is more to your liking? If you really want to criticize Auto Manufacturers for poor fuel economy and waste...talk to the folks at Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati, and the rest of the Super Luxury crowd. Their vehicles get far worse fuel economy than any Ford Expedition!
I actually have never thought it that way..
Yes, the Big V12 Mercedes S class and the Big bad W12 Volkswagen are really gas guzzlers
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
615 Posts
Have you ever seen the Fuel Mileage Ratings on a Ferrari or Lamborghini?

Those number make a Hummer look down right practical and economical.

I have seen a Lamborghini Murcielago with a Rating of 11mpg Highway, 7mpg City. That is just horrific for a car with that kind of technology and price-tag.

Yet, Ford and its Expedition, GM and its Suburbans and Hummers get all of the criticism. But alas, no one seems to be criticizing Toyota and its Land Cruiser/LX470 and FJ Cruiser or Nissan and the new Pathfinder Armada...

Do I sense a certain anti-Detroit bias? Gee...I wonder.

Sorry...got to run to work.
As Always...Stay Fabulous!
RG59061
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
764 Posts
Have you ever seen the Fuel Mileage Ratings on a Ferrari or Lamborghini?

Those number make a Hummer look down right practical and economical.

I have seen a Lamborghini Murcielago with a Rating of 11mpg Highway, 7mpg City. That is just horrific for a car with that kind of technology and price-tag.

Yet, Ford and its Expedition, GM and its Suburbans and Hummers get all of the criticism. But alas, no one seems to be criticizing Toyota and its Land Cruiser/LX470 and FJ Cruiser or Nissan and the new Pathfinder Armada...

Do I sense a certain anti-Detroit bias? Gee...I wonder.

Sorry...got to run to work.
As Always...Stay Fabulous!
RG59061

At least some people have started to pick up on the fact that Toyota builds big gass guzzling SUVs/trucks. Look at this: http://www.fomoconews.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,028 Posts
I love the Expedition, and the last version is very atractive. Thats why the Exped sales up 35 % this year! Is very big, but is a very nice vehicle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
764 Posts
I actually have never thought it that way..
Yes, the Big V12 Mercedes S class and the Big bad W12 Volkswagen are really gas guzzlers
I have never thought of it like that either. But now that I am, I started wondering, do you really need a V-6 Camry when you can get a Hybrid? Or even when the Fusion Hybrid comes out, do you really need the V-6? I guess really the question is, why would you not get a Hybrid unless it is a perfomance vehicle, or if the manufacturer does not offer one?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
615 Posts
Hybrid vehicles are meerly a stop gap measuree until Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology can be implemented on a larger scale.

In reality, it costs more to own and operate a Toyota Prius over its entire lifetime...than it does to own and operate a V8 Chevrolet Suburban.

Ipossible you say...not hardly. Three words will explain why...Lithium-Ion Batteries!

Recycling and disposal of a Lithium Ion battery is so expensive even after the expensive manufacturing of them that when factored in to the operation of a Toyota Prius...it makes it more costly than a Full Size V8 SUV.

Take that fact on top of the already astronomical costs required to buy a Hybrid and you have to ask yourself...why? I personally see the Ford Fusion I-4 as a better option.

As Always...Stay Fabulous!
RG59061
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top