The all new 2018 Ford Expedition

Kensington

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Aug 14, 2017
11,317
5,369
To put things in perspective, last year, GM sold nearly as many Escalades (both wheelbases), as ford sold Expo's and Navigators combined! I want to say ford sold some ~40k combined. Cadillac sold just under 38k alone. GM as a whole, sold 277,413 K2Y's last year.

Relook at those numbers...Ford sold 52K Expo's (about the same number as the Yukon) and 10,500 Navigators. To a total of 37.5K total Escalades, so a bit more than half the total Expo/Navi sales.
 

Kensington

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Aug 14, 2017
11,317
5,369
quite honestly the new escalade is basically a 15 year old vehicle at it's heart too.

The only help that Ford really gave it in the 15 years was the EcoBoost though. The Escalade at least got upgraded suspension, engines, transmission along the way (Ford was still making do with the old 3V 5.4/6-speed combo through 2014, and was the only model (I believe) outside of the Ecoline series that had that engine still...It had been ditched by the rest of the lineup 4 years before for the 6.2 and Coyote.

2004-2009 both the Tahoe and Expo saw their sales drop from the 200K vehicles a year range, to down around 80K and 45K respectively. Both have slowly but surely risen over the last 8 years or so, the Tahoe slightly more than the Expo.
 

Kensington

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Aug 14, 2017
11,317
5,369
Shit, when the 4.6 replaced the old 5.0, the 4.6 was down on real world power and torque. There were still 5.0's in production, and they were underrating them, to make the 4.6 look better than it actually was. It was nice that the mod motors eventually spawned the Coyote (which is a legitimate LS and Gen V contender) but that was a decade and a half of just terribleness...I just thought about it, and I've owned 4 mod motors...3 2V 4.6's and a 3V 5.4...

/goes and jumps off bridge
 

Dasfinc

Ready for the EVlution
Sep 28, 2007
20,919
1,321
Wheaton, IL
Shit, when the 4.6 replaced the old 5.0, the 4.6 was down on real world power and torque. There were still 5.0's in production, and they were underrating them, to make the 4.6 look better than it actually was. It was nice that the mod motors eventually spawned the Coyote (which is a legitimate LS and Gen V contender) but that was a decade and a half of just terribleness...I just thought about it, and I've owned 4 mod motors...3 2V 4.6's and a 3V 5.4...

/goes and jumps off bridge

I'd sooner have a 2001 5.0 SBF powered Explorer for the same money as a 4.6 powered 2001 Expedition all day, every day.
 

Bru

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
TCG Premium
May 24, 2007
40,511
10,220
What's the Best Full-Size SUV for 2018?

img2089106386-1522781376759.jpg


https://www.cars.com/articles/whats-the-best-full-size-suv-for-2018-1420699710671/

1 Ford Expedition Limited, 820 points

The verdict: Redesigned for 2018, the Expedition combines a surprisingly accommodating third row with overall comfort, capability, technology and space in a stylish (if expensive) package. The main downside is frequent stops at the gas station when towing.

Our Test Vehicle
As-tested price: $72,655
Engine; drive type: 375-hp, turbocharged 3.5-liter V-6; four-wheel drive
Estimated city/highway/combined mpg: 17/22/19

The 2018 Ford Expedition is our runaway Challenge winner, having bested the second-ranked Armada by 120 points. Of the 17 judging categories, the Expedition ranked first in nine and tied for first in four, averaging no lower than 7.3 out of 10 points for any category; in no category did it rank third or last. Perhaps the Expedition's greatest triumph is a roomy third row that doesn't rob space from the other rows. In addition to the aspects detailed below, the Expedition was top-rated for visibility, ride quality and cargo storage.

The Good

Interior comfort: The Ford rated a few tenths of a point behind the top-ranked Chevy for front-seat comfort, partly because two judges found the bottom cushions "short and unsupportive," said Bragman — but the Expedition rated highest for the second and third rows. "Every row has plenty of room, and the third row is the biggest of the bunch," said Bragman. Normile added, "Third-row passengers can be actual adult-sized humans, and the tilt-and-slide second row makes third-row access a breeze."

Child-safety seat accommodation: The roomy Ford crushed the competitors in the Cars.com Car Seat Check, with straight A's except for the challenging third row, where an intrusive head restraint complicated convertible and booster-seat fitment.

Powertrain: "The turbo V-6 is fantastic, with instant response and plenty of torque," said Bragman. Normile added, "It handles the addition of a trailer with aplomb. While the 10-speed automatic transmission was a joint venture between GM and Ford, Ford's execution is the smarter of the two, shifting quickly and intelligently."

Drive modes: Williams "fell in love with the seven different drive modes, including an Eco mode," he said. "It changes throttle sensitivity, steering assist, transmission shift patterns and more." The jury concurred.

Multimedia provisions: "Ford's Sync 3 system was my favorite of the four," said Williams. Bragman described it as "clear and easy to use, and it connects to smartphones with speed." Normile cited "USB ports in each row to keep passengers' devices charged."

Towing performance: "The Ford tows like a champ, with surprising grunt from the V-6 and a lack of hunting from the 10-speed," Bragman said. Normile lauded "trailering-focused features like Ford's Pro Trailer Backup Assist, onscreen trailer hookup checklist and trailer light diagnostic system."

Gas mileage (unladen): With observed mileage of 21.6 mpg on our drive loop, the Expedition was less than 1 mpg shy of the leading Tahoe — when not towing ...

The Bad

Gas mileage (towing): ... But saddled with a trailer weighing just over one-third of the Expedition's rated 9,200-pound capacity (as equipped), the turbocharged V-6 became mighty thirsty, losing more efficiency than competitors — 53 percent — and dropping from a close second-place ranking with 21.6 mpg unladen to just 10.2 mpg while towing. Even with these results, it remained more efficient than the Nissan, but its 23.3-gallon fuel tank is a few gallons smaller than the others, adding to the pain.

Rotary gear selector knob: "It doesn't save any room and is frustrating to operate," said Bragman. Normile agreed: "It has the same footprint as a traditional lever selector without the intuitive operation."

Tow/Haul mode activation: "There's no dedicated button," Bragman said. "It's buried as one of the drive modes, engaged by a rotary selector."
 

Dasfinc

Ready for the EVlution
Sep 28, 2007
20,919
1,321
Wheaton, IL
Sounds like the GT40P heads don't do the manifolds/headers any favors, with the weird spark plug angle/placement

I actually have a set of the Knock-Off "Torque Monster" headers that are supposed to offer something silly like 25/30WHP on these heads just because of flow restrictions.

I'm excited to see how they fair on the Ranger when I get it back together again.
 

Kensington

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Aug 14, 2017
11,317
5,369
I actually have a set of the Knock-Off "Torque Monster" headers that are supposed to offer something silly like 25/30WHP on these heads just because of flow restrictions.

I'm excited to see how they fair on the Ranger when I get it back together again.

What's the best block to pair the GT40P heads with? Do different year Mustangs/Explorers offer better compression over others?
 

Dasfinc

Ready for the EVlution
Sep 28, 2007
20,919
1,321
Wheaton, IL
What's the best block to pair the GT40P heads with? Do different year Mustangs/Explorers offer better compression over others?

The very best ‘budget’ combo to my understanding is the Fox body bottom end that has factory forged pistons (like 89-90? Something like that?) and 1996-1997 Explorer GT40 heads (half way through 97 they switched to GT40P which has the odd plug angle and no header options, the 96 and early 97 Explorer GT40 heads have 95% of the improvements, and all the header options.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 90 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant. Consider starting a new thread to get fresh replies.

Thread Info