It’s hard to believe that the Ford Expedition has been a part of the marketplace since 1996, I still recall seeing my first one back then as we happened to be visiting my in-laws and parked their then-new Ford Explorer next to one. My mother-in-law looked that Expedition over and remarked that it looked very similar, just larger, and perhaps they should have waited for it instead.
While that first generation was notable for its good looks and popularity, subsequent generations were a bit more ho-hum until this fourth-generation version arrived a couple of years ago. Available since 2007 in a longer wheelbase format as well (to more or less replace the enormous Excursion), the Expedition has always competed mainly with GM’s offerings in the category and in the standard wheelbase configuration such as the one I had an opportunity to drive here, firmly has the popular Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon in its sights.
Those two are in the process of having a new generation rolled out as we speak, however the Expedition has become a more familiar sight on our roads. And a welcome sight it is too, boasting what I consider restrained but very handsome styling, looking strong, sleek (if something this large can qualify as sleek), and thoroughly modern in sort of a rectilinear European fashion, albeit with some very American flourishes, especially as mine was equipped.
Last year Ford moved over 86,000 of them in the U.S. which seems like a lot until you realize it’s a fraction of its competition but there is no longer any really good reason for that. The market seems to have caught on though, as that total (Expedition sales) is up significantly from the year prior and in fact every year dating back to 2007. The relative sales to the competition’s will bear watching.
The Expedition is and always has been based on the F-150 with numerous commonalities, and as with pickups there are a plethora of trim levels available. Seeing as I had the Limited, I initially figured that was close to the top of the line, however that was not the case as it starts with the XLT, then Limited, then King Ranch and finally the Platinum.
After living with the Limited for a week, I can’t say that it was missing anything I would consider essential and in fact seemed to have much more than the usual complement of standard fripperies for a lower-half model. You’d be forgiven for assuming that this was the typical loaded tester, however not so, this Expedition arrived with a grand total of two (!) options (ok, option packages), which we will get into later and accounted for much less than ten percent of the total price. However, a lot of things usually considered optional are standard already so that helps a lot.
Presented in Iconic Silver Metallic (Yes, “Iconic” is part of the color’s name) with Ebony Leather-trimmed interior, this Kentucky-built SUV certainly looks imposing but without the over the top macho-ness evident in some pickup trucks these days, the swept-back grille makes a big difference here.
Compared to the current Tahoe/Yukon, the standard Expedition is about half a foot longer for a total of 210 inches (the Max version is yet another foot or so longer making that about 2″ shorter than the Suburban). That extra length pays dividends as it allows for more cargo room behind both the second as well as third rows with what I perceived as more space in both, albeit a much more comfortable position in the second row than the third.
The Expedition also has an independent rear suspension as one of its major differences relative to its F150 roots, something the GM competition is finally getting this year as well, this has long been one of the major advantages for the Ford, allowing the rear floor to be lower and the third row seats to disappear into the floor at the touch of a button.
In fact, both the second as well as third rows are powered. In the case of the second row, they flop down but need to be pulled back up manually, however the third row gracefully folds into the floor and then magically reappears at the press of yet another button.
Cargo space is ample with the second row down, and cavernous with both rear rows down (And this is the short version).
With both rows up, there is room behind the third row, but it is likely not enough for eight passengers worth of luggage unless it’s a “sun’n’surf” trip. But Ford sells the longer one if that’s a common scenario. For purely people carrying, four or less will be extremely comfortable, five will be very comfortable, seven will mostly be sufficiently comfortable, and if eight, they’d better be very small or not at all concerned with social distancing and hopefully it’s a short trip.
Note that in the second row I had tons of room when sitting “behind myself” but the third row was tighter.
In the third row my knees were into the second row seatback and my head was up against the headliner until I realized that there is a handy recline function back there, which solved the head issue but not the knee one.
Clambering back to the third row is simple, the second row seat basically tries to hug the first row and more or less gets itself out of the way (manually, but simple to do), it’s not just a further origami move beyond folding down, it’s a whole different Twister scenario.
But nobody will buy this to seat themselves in the third row, they buy this to be captain of the ship! So what’s the helm like? In a word, excellent. Frankly, this was significantly nicer than I was expecting. Two years ago I was given a loaner 2017 (previous generation) Expedition when my even older Mercedes GL was having hail damage repaired.
I was so displeased with it that I went back and traded it out for a Tahoe at the end of the first day with it. At that point in its run it was simply uncompetitive, slathered in hard, poorly grained plastics, evoking a very budget vibe, and displaying every bit of its pickup truck roots.
Well, that’s no more, the driver’s seat itself for example would not be out of place in a Volvo, with thick leather, carefully stitched seams, three levels of built-in cooling as well as heating, and plenty of thigh support. It proved all-day comfortable on several long-ish drives and allowed for a multitude of driving positions. The lumbar support had a wide range of adjustment, let down only by the fact that it does not allow a height adjustment, just more or less support in one fixed area. But I set the seat up once on the first day and then didn’t touch any of the adjusters all week, that’s a sign of a good seat for me.
The dash, while still having some harder plastics, mostly has them in areas where they aren’t much of an issue or where they are to be expected such as the vent surrounds etc. The majority of the top of the dash and doors were covered in either leather or a good facsimile of it with an attractive stitching pattern around the edges. The wood was obviously fake, while visually looking excellent with a pattern and color that I liked a lot, once touched or tapped it was immediately obvious that it was plastic through and through, and not a particularly solid plastic either.
I suppose the tradeoff is that it seemed durable, as in scratch-resistant, and if it did get damaged, would likely not be expensive to replace, the matte finish on it would likely hide scratches and fingerprints far better than highly glossy coated wood veneers found in some other vehicles. It is used on the door panels and in the center console – around the shifter knob area and as movable covers to the right and ahead of that (both pictured open above and below)
Gear selection is done via a rotary knob, however I can’t figure out why the parking brake (also electric) is not placed next to it, but rather in front of one’s left knee. This proved a little irksome over time, as the procedure to start and get moving needed to be to push the starter button, then rotate the shifter knob, then use the other hand to depress the brake button.
However that could not be done by touch alone as it is located immediately next to the electric foot pedal adjuster mechanism and more than once I adjusted that instead. Hence a longer process than in other vehicles and it was difficult to get used to the fact that to turn the engine on or off, one pushes the starter button, but has to pull the brake button to engage it (push to disengage), and then twist the gear selector. I’m able to chew gum and walk at the same time and can multi-task quite well, but this was getting to be a little too reminiscent of the “Hokey-Pokey” dance. My guess is that the project engineer at Ford does not use the parking brake and thus wasn’t concerned about it. It’s annoying for those of us that do and easily corrected.
The other interior gripe I had was with the wireless charging (Am I really that spoiled that I can complain about this marvelous feature?). I have wireless charging in my own car and more and more vehicles are starting to feature it. Usually there is a pad or place to put the phone and it just charges, no cables. This is even nicer than it sounds, yes, it’s not difficult to plug in a cord, but now that you don’t have to, it’s becoming expected.
The problem with it here is that the phone needs to be placed in a cubby at the bottom of the center stack. This cubby has a cover (that always stayed open) which is nice for security but the opening is so small my hand did not fit and it became a pain to put the phone in place. The pad barely holds my iPhone8+ and while I was grateful for the wireless charging it was such a pain to position that often I would not even bother with it. An unintended consequence (or perhaps this is precisely the point?) is that it made the phone harder to get to when it was desired.
My state for example does allow me to talk on the handset while driving (no texting), I don’t want to debate if that’s good or bad, but it makes it more dangerous to get at the phone when it’s tucked away as it is. Yes, there is Bluetooth and AppleCarPlay and AndroidAuto but sometimes you don’t want everything broadcast through the cabin and still can’t ignore the call. If this were actually my car I’d probably have a cord handy to plug in and leave the wireless for a passenger which is a bit of a shame and something that could be improved on.
Still, if those are my major complaints, that’s not bad. Once moving, the vehicle was delightful. I’m glad that I had the opportunity to sample GM’s 6.2l V8 recently as the twin turbo 3.5l V6 as featured here did initially have some controversy attached to it in the marketplace as to whether or not it could replace a good V8. Let me tell you that yes it can. No doubt about that.
Tuned as it is in this application, it provides 375hp and 400lb-ft of torque (and slightly/somewhat higher in some higher trimmed Expeditions as well as other vehicles). On regular gasoline that provides for much better than expected acceleration and pulling power. It simply gets up and goes, whether from a full stop or when already at the limit on the freeway and doesn’t seem to run out of breath. I’d have zero compunctions about choosing this over any V8, and I believe history has shown it to be a very good engine as far as longevity is concerned.
The transmission is a 10-speed unit codenamed internally at Ford as “The Schwinn” (no, not really), shifts imperceptibly, can regularly be found all the way up in 10th gear, but is willing to immediately downshift multiple gears as needed before anyone can grumble about what’s taking so long. The dashboard features a graphic showing which gear it is in at all times which is not always the case in other vehicles and appreciated.
You can also choose to shift gears “manually” but it seems pointless to do so, really. Overall it is very well suited to the engine and a great complement to the vehicle itself. A V8 is not missed here. Even the sound is not unattractive, more of a muted roar at times than a V8 burble but distinctive enough to know there is some serious power down underneath.
One may wonder if the V6 pays dividends at the pump, after all it IS labeled “EcoBoost”. Well, the boost part taketh what the eco part giveth. In my week and close to 400 miles it averaged 18.6mpg, this is more or less comparable to the 19 I got with GM’s 6.2l V8. Ford rates it at 17 hwy, 22 city with 19 combined. I drove to Laramie and back (there on Hwy 287, back via I-80/25) as well as to the eastern metro area of Denver via Hwy 85 and returning via I-70/25.
That accounted for about 325 miles, the balance was in town, lowest altitude was 4982 feet above sea level, highest 8235, A/C was on continuously and I spent some time scouting and positioning for photo opportunities throughout. Freeway speeds were high, generally around 75-80mph and highway speeds steady at 60-70 with minimal traffic.
When there was traffic such as for lights, the Expedition has a stop/start system that’s slightly annoying, it is noticeable when it wakes up and for whatever reason decides to shut down only to wake up again within seconds if the A/C is running as it was for most of my time. What’s the point of that, if it can’t run with the A/C on for the duration of a traffic light, then it should just stay on. Altitude didn’t bother it at all, the turbos compensated very well (as they do) and it was able to run and hang with anything else on the highway.
Steering feel is pretty much non-existent, it turns well enough but one has zero idea of what’s going on below the tires but does track very well at higher speeds, making for a relaxing cruiser. Back at city speeds, the turning circle was excellent, far tighter than I would have thought. The ride itself was alright, a little busier than expected but I should chalk that up to one of the option packages in particular rather than damning the whole line here, I don’t think this particular version may be representative of all of the other ones in that regard.
I don’t mind a firm ride at all (prefer it, actually) but I had envisioned it somewhat more pillow smooth than what it turned out to be. I’ll hasten to say that I surprised myself by musing to myself that as long as someone else was carrying the fuel budget, I’d very happily drive this across the country, either by myself or with a full load of passengers.
I know I’m on record as liking virtually all vehicles (I really do, and everything is good at something), but this one stood out in that regard, it was just effortless, even the size wasn’t a hindrance as it seems to drive smaller than it actually is.
Visibility is generally decent all around, however the blind spot system is handy to have as looking over one’s left shoulder makes apparent that the B-pillar and interior grab handle take a up a large amount of the field of vision, and sitting high up can of course make smaller and especially much lower vehicles harder to spot.
I tend to run the radio at a generally low level, hence usually the sound system isn’t a huge thing for me, but when I get a good one in a tester, then I go all MARRS and “Pump Up The Volume”. This Ford features a Bang&Olufsen system as standard that quite frankly can hang with the best of them, at least as far as my old ears are concerned.
Highs are audible, lows go belly-deep, and my eardrums were distorting before the speakers were (they actually didn’t). It’s good, really good. Sometimes I like me some old-school rap music and I don’t bother seeking it out unless I know the speakers are good, I certainly did in this one and was bobbing my head heavily to the beat. It was a wholly unexpected feature, something I may have expected in the Lincoln Navigator version of this, but not here. Good job there, Ford!
So let’s talk about that most contentious of topics, price, just in case one day soon you find yourself in the Showcase Showdown portion of The Price Is Right and one of these pops up as the grand prize. According to my sticker, this 4×4 “Limited” trim level starts at an MSRP of $66,470, your dealer may be amenable to adjusting that. That includes everything I’ve discussed so far, as well as automatic headlights and wipers, heated and power folding mirrors, roof rack, powered fold-out running boards (replaced by an option below), heated seats front and rear (not third though) and steering wheel, ventilated front seats, power seats with memory, tri-zone automatic climate control, the B&O sound system, WiFi, Satellite radio, a garage door button, and plenty of airbags and other safety systems/nannies and more.
Options as I said were limited to two items. First was the Equipment Group 301A, priced at $2,555 which gets you Ford CoPilot360 Assist (this simply appears to add Adaptive Cruise Control to the existing safety electronics suite in the standard CoPilot360 package), Voice-activated touch-screen Navigation capability to the standard Sync3 system, and the Panoramic Vista Roof.
The panoramic roofs seem to be quite popular, I’ve owned a couple of vehicles with them and while we never had issues with either, didn’t use it often either. People who love them rave about them. I opened the screen (full length) and the roof (front panel only opens), and it was nice. Then I closed it and left it that way. It did tend to heat up the interior a lot if the shade wasn’t closed. Adaptive Cruise is a great feature, I’m a believer, but I could leave the Nav alone, the phone works well if not even better for that assuming there’s a signal of course.
The second option (and far more contentious in my view) is the FX4 Off-Road Package With 360Camera, which is new for 2020 for the Limited trim level and probably why this particular vehicle was in the local press fleet. Priced at $2,035 it seems to add a lot of kit (or at least replaces other stuff) – The 360 degree camera is great when reversing due to the overhead view and it did come in handy when I tried to avoid boulders for my photos as well as having a split screen option.
The 18″ “Magnetic”-colored wheels, you either like darkish wheels or you don’t, it allows for a bigger-sidewall tire, so that’s good, they replace 20’s on the Limited. Skid plates are handy to have (there are seven including one to protect the intercooler from sand), and it also comes equipped with a 3.73 Electronic LSD rear axle. And floor liners for the first two rows although mine had regular carpeted mats.
Shocks are specially tuned for off-road, this is why I gave it a bit of a pass regarding the ride above. I think it’s fine, i.e. I would not be unhappy with it as is, but suspect the standard suspension likely makes for a smoother ride. This vehicle, if it were equipped (it was not) with the heavy duty towing package could also tow an impressive 9200 pound load.
I think it kind of loses the plot at this point though, the tires are outline white letter 275/65R18 A/T tires. OK, but they are Michelin Primacy XC tires and not really all-terrain by any stretch. The tread is a very quiet (that’s good) highway-looking tread, but the tread is not aggressive, this will get you to the Moab motel parking lot but not onto any rocks or through any mudholes.
The outline white letter look is a bit passe as well, certainly on something that costs well into the $60k range and definitely on anything outlining the name Michelin – they might be made in the US (they are, I checked) but it’s a French tire company. Even some of the most aggressive off-road tires aren’t sold (or at least bought) in OWL form anymore.
Then there are the chrome running boards. Sure, better than the electric foldaway units they replace in terms of not causing huge damage repair bills, but nobody uses running boards offroad, they just get in the way and hang up on stuff. A true offroader should not have these things. And the chrome is a bit garish, not in keeping with the overall theme going on with this vehicle. Every other mega-buck SUV uses mostly stainless steel here but anything really off-road oriented either does without or has actual protective devices/bars, some with a built-in step.
I do like the electronic drive mode-selector in the center console though, beyond Normal, Eco, Sport, etc there’s also a mode for grass/gravel/snow, mud, as well as sand, I suppose that would be handy to adjust the engine, transmission and other parameters for various scenarios (picture duplicated from above for your convenience).
And atop the console there is a button for Hill descent control, allowing the vehicle to drive itself downhill and modulating the speed and brakes better than a human could. You can also select from 2WD, 4WD, 4LO as well as “4A”, i.e. automatic AWD, my preferred choice for changeable winter weather but this week I left it in 2WD virtually the entire time.
I don’t mind the idea of an off-road package, I mean, it IS a 4×4 but this doesn’t seem that serious. There’re plenty of somewhat more aggressive tires that would be less cynical here and the chrome running boards are really a bit much, way more show than go. Let an owner pick those from the accessory catalog, just offer it without. I know it’s unlikely that any of these will ever really be off-road but what does the F150 come with in its FX4 package, for example? Follow that example here.
Additionally, there is a line item on the sticker that credits $590 back as “Equipment Group Savings” but then there’s also a $1,395 destination charge. In any case, the grand total asking price is $71,865.
Lest it be thought I was a bit harsh there, that’s mainly in regard to the FX4 option package. That package may or may not be of use to everyone. Other than that, I found the Expedition to be a magnificent beast and Ford should be proud to offer it.
I believe the only reason there aren’t more of them on the roads are that the prior generation was left to wither on the vine a bit too long, driving and learning about this was was a genuine pleasant surprise, kind of like the feeling you get when you take the time to get to know an American person. They’re usually proud, often a little brash, sometimes a little rough around the edges but almost always fundamentally friendly as well as willing to buckle down and get the job done, whatever it is.
Thank you very much to Ford for providing this vehicle and a full tank of gasoline for us to sample it this week. We appreciate it.
The first-generation Expedition really was notable when it arrived. My dad had a 97 Eddie Bauer in the ubiquitous Pacific Green Metallic. It was only the second Expedition in our small, relatively affluent and family-focused town and it drew a LOT of attention. I was 14 at the time and spent a good portion of my driver training behind the wheel. Overall, I remember it being a nice vehicle that was surprisingly fun to drive. It was replaced in 1999 with an Escalade which, despite some fancier features and finishes, overall felt like a step down from the Eddie.
If I had the life circumstances to demand such a vehicle (and 71k laying around) I would happily drive the latest generation. Sharp looks and, from the sounds of the review, the same core competency of the original. Very enjoyable read, Jim!
It is kind of amazing to me that it has taken this long to get a really competitive Expedition out into the market. The original version seems to have not aged well, as during various local used car forays cheap used Expys were common.
I have also never quite understood the value of the Tahoe/Regular Expedition class when there is something like the Suburban available. When you start with something this huge, why not get the cargo capacity that comes along with the slightly huge-er. But that’s just me.
Finally, I scratch my head about the powerplant. Though I should not – it no doubt ekes out those elusive little CAFE mpgs under test conditions, though seems to provide zero economy benefit in the real world compared with the simpler V8. But such is our world. And thanks for this interesting review – I appreciate the report.
I rented one of the prior generation about a year and a half ago when we went downstate to pick up our new puppy. While I’ll echo Jim’s comment on the plasticky interior, it was really a revelation on how maneuverable such a giant vehicle could be. It was effortless to pilot through the crowded city traffic in Chicago. On the downside, it wouldn’t fit in my garage and I had to park it about two blocks from my place, as it takes up what seems like half a block of curb space. I was a little disappointed to not have that V8 burble on starting it, but the 6 certainly made the flying brick fly on the long stretches of interstate. While this type of vehicle is just way too large to be a practical everyday thing where I live, it certainly isn’t as gluttonous or wallowing as I would have thought prior to renting it. It’s quite a nice drive, and I’m sure this newer generation is even better.
A former coworker had a 2007 Expedition. It was nice, highly maneuverable, and quite perky with the 5.4. As JPC observed, one could get this for a nice price used, as my coworker acquired it quite reasonably with 90k on the odometer.
This new Expedition appears to blow the old ones out of the water – as well they should be. Price aside, I’m sitting here wondering what sorts of goodies are available on the Platinum trim, given how nice this almost bottom of the barrel example is. Base trim vehicles really aren’t that basic in equipment.
Thinking about it, I’m wondering if the true advantage of the Ecoboost vs GM’s 6.2 liter is in the less frequently mentioned metric of gallons per hour. Sure, you can get crappy fuel mileage with either one, but if one is sitting in traffic, at what rate are they burning fuel? A measure of Zero mpg doesn’t equate to rate of fuel burn, which is where the Ecoboost likely is much better than the old V8 engines.
You’re forgetting that the GM V8s have displacement on demand, and are able to run on as few as one cylinder. On the EPA cycle, which it only runs in V8 mode 39% of the time. I doubt there’s any real difference between them in terms of actual gallons per hour.
Good point about displacement on demand; I had simply forgotten about it. But when stuck idling in traffic, does it run on all 8 or shut off a few? I simply don’t know enough about it but was thinking the shut off was more when cruising.
Well with auto stop start gal/hr at idle is less of a concern, but if AC demand is high they won’t shut off so it could make a difference. I don’t know about the current system but on the older GMs it would only idle on all 8.
Admittedly I never have been and never will be in the market for such a vehicle, but I’ve grown to understand the appeal more and more over the last 20 years. These are essentially the Fleetwood Broughams and Town Cars of the moment. (FBs and TCs also being vehicles I’ve never been and never will be drawn to.) All things considered, when viewing them in this light they’re easier for me to understand, and easier for me to appreciate. After all, there was never a full-size American luxury sedan that’d capably and comfortably do everything one of these can do without breaking a sweat.
My curiosity about this generation of Expedition focuses on the long term durability. As mentioned above, there are scads of older Expeditions creaking and groaning and lumbering along, mostly looking like battle scarred dinosaurs on their last migration toward extinction. Having driven a 2000 Eddie Bauer Expedition on a 600 mile winter weather solo trip back in 2003, I came away with a deep and abiding hatred for the thing. Even at 3 years old with commensurate mileage on the clock, it was a miserable vehicle to drive, ride in, or frankly even to be in while parked (YMMV). I suppose the number of that generation still moving might be testament to their overall fortitude, but as mentioned above, they have not aged well at all. And in my estimation that was a foregone conclusion based on my experience with a new one.
Having also had a bit of wheel time in the past two generations of Tahoe/Yukons, the GM behemoths impressed me as having better dynamics and being somewhat better screwed together than their Ford counterparts. An unscientific survey seems to back up that impression, as it appears to me that the GM twins I still see grazing in Sam’s Club parking lots or grumbling through traffic mostly appear in better fettle than the equivalent Fords.
Mind, I have never owned a Ford product, and haven’t driven one in probably 12-15 years, so much of this babble is pure opinion, but since I’ll likely never own or even drive one of these my only interest in them will be as an observer over time. I really like the looks of this generation, far and away more than the current GM equivalents. Hopefully for those who pony up the Benjamins they’ll age far better than their predecessors.
Very nice observation on the longevity of GM versus Ford big SUVs. Amazing how some things never change, like the old adage, “Old GM vehicles continue to run badly after other old vehicles just stop running”.
The reason you see so many older ones still plying the roads is because they are durable and just keep running. Yeah they are beat up to the point that they would go to the great junkyard in the sky if it needed an expensive repair, but they usually don’t, so their owners just keep driving them.
Late this past winter an employee in a work vehicle got tangled up with an early ’00s Expedition. It was a one owner vehicle and he was pretty upset about its demise. He had 435,000 miles on it and was aiming for 500k.
Every time I hear of a vehicle like this racking up big-time mileage all I can think to do is add up the fuel costs in my head. That guy spent some crazy coin piloting that thing around over 20 years. Too bad he didn’t make the 1/2 million mile goal. If I’d made that kind of investment only to have it snuffed out in an instant I’d be pissed too.
With fuel prices being what they are in the US, the cost to operate one BOF truck for nearly 20 years is less than the cost to operate a more efficient car and trade it in halfway through.
And of course what did I see tonight, a first generation Expedition, in Eddie Bauer trim with sagging rear air suspension, mangled pass side running board and passenger side mirror swinging from the wires. Probably on its 4th or 5th owner with well north of 200k on the clock but still getting the job done.
Great review. I noted your comments on the seats – nice to see Ford stepping up its game there.
Speaking for myself, I guess you know you’re getting old when you’re more interested in the seats versus what’s under the hood…:-)
Very thorough and well-written review. I think you may have future doing this for a living…your writing is way better than the usual hyperbolic BS written by most professional “car mag” journalists Nicely done!
While I don’t care much about full size SUVs these days, they are handy for people who really need them. We had a string of Suburbans and Tahoe/Yukons some years ago when our kids were young and busy, and they suited our needs at the time, so I get their appeal.
This Expedition seems very nice and all, and it looks good. But Ford is well behind its competition in a key area that matters these days with buyers: electronics. The screen in your tester looks tiny and 5 years behind the times compared to what GM and others are offering on their latest SUVs. And Ford’s Sync technology is mediocre and just not up to par with the competition.
I would also question the reliability of the sensor technology, based on our recent experience with my wife’s Ford Edge. She had problems with the various proximity sensors randomly going off the whole 4 years she had it. The dealer(s) never could seem to fix it and it was one of the reasons she replaced it and went with a different make this past January.
Thanks. The Sync3 screen size is 8” which is competitive but not one of the larger ones. I don’t think I’d call it tiny, it’s perfectly fine, just suffers now that huge screens are becoming available (at usually significant extra cost). The system performed fine, the one thing I noted is that upon initial startup when switching between menus (music, HVAC, nav etc) there was a bit of lag time until the screen booted up. However once done the first time it stayed up in the background and toggling back to it again made it come up instantly.
Personally I thought it was fine, my own preference is FCA’s UConnect but I’ll be careful to note here that I have more experience with that system. In normal usage I don’t think I noted anything with Sync3 that would cause me to reject the vehicle. But as with other aspects, personal preference plays into this aspect as well when making a purchasing decision.
Uconnect has its detractors, as well. In fact, I’m not sure there’s a current clear winner in the area of electronic vehicle interfaces. At least I can’t recall a review where someone raved about how good a particular system was relative to the competition. Seems like there’s ‘just okay’ and ‘not as good’, but that’s about it.
Well, maybe Tesla, but that seems like a whole different league.
They all take some time to learn, and once used to one then little annoyances tend to creep up. Like UConnect, it was easy to figure out what to push to get to the desired menu and then do what is wanted with some controls duplicated with physical buttons (such as HVAC)
The main beef I see with Uconnect isn’t so much the operation. In typical Chrysler fashion, it’s more of that it has an annoying habit of occasionally not working, at all.
Interesting. The one I had in my Chrysler 300C never had an issue, None of the test cars I’ve had have had any issues whatsoever either in that regard. Those are all anecdotes, I’d be interested in seeing data in that regard though. They’re ubiquitous now, even if one goes out way past the warranty period it should be simple to find one on ebay or a junkyard, like any other component.
I may be overstating things a bit. When I say, “not working”, luckily, the Uconnect issues have all relatively quickly self-repaired and not been bad enough to warrant a trip to the service department. For example, about 10% of the time, upon start-up, the nav screen will be blank (this happens enough it even has a name: the Blue/Black Screen Of Death or BSOD), but the radio will still be playing.
The workaround has been to select the radio, which brings up the radio screen, and I then select nav where the screen will now magically appear. Just a minor annoyance for most, I suppose. But, then again, the nav routinely quit working on my 2015 Ram van so much it eventually had to be replaced. It then began doing it infrquently again, but it might have been due to poor reception in certain areas of the country.
But here’s the thing. I’ve had three Priuses and a Chevy Volt, quite electronically complicated and sophisticated vehicles, and I never had any similar issues. The worst of those four was an improperly installed steering rack with a dead center spot that felt like it was doing minor lane adjustments for no reason on the Volt, replaced under warranty. No issues with any of the Toyotas.
The 8″ screen is small compared to the 12″ and 14″ screens (or larger) that others OEMs are now putting in their trucks and SUVs. Maybe Ford will upgarde in the next model year or so, but like I said, they are a step behind the others in this dept.
I have Sync 2 in my 2015 F150 and it flat our sucks. Laggy, terrible touch screen UI…the Sync 3 that was in my wife’s former ’16 Edge was better but still a bit laggy compared to, say, the UConnect that was in my dad’s 2012 Grand Cherokee (that was 8 years ago!).
So again, maybe except for what they are putting in the brand new Lincoln Aviator, Ford is 1/2 to 1 step behind competitors in their mass market vehicles with infotainment tech, when there is no reason they shouldn’t be at least keeping up with competitors, if not out in front.
I have a car with Sync 2 and another with Sync 3. 2 had horrible and prolonged growing pains, but update after update tamed the beast. To put it more positively, it led the industry in both innovation and teething pains.
Sync 3 has been a joy. Screen size doesn’t matter is the screen space is managed with large fonts, logical layouts, and large “touch buttons”.
I have to confess finding these rather appealing, maybe even in long-wheelbase form as a slightly more sophisticated variation on the Suburban, though the new GM seems pretty well updated. I think they’d do well to adapt the cleaner front end styling to the F150. I’d be even more attracted to the Expedition if it were offered in an XL/FX4 configuration … even base models seem to have enough luxury features by my standards, throw in a rear e-locker and skid plates, 18” wheels (I suppose 17’s don’t clear the brakes), refrigerator white with gray cloth seats and a roof rack, and you’d have an excellent forest road and desert explorer, I mean, expedition vehicle. I wonder if they offer such a package for law enforcement/ranger use.
Did anyone else think the reflection of the chrome running boards into the bottom of the doors was some sort of strobe stripe in the vein of old Chrysler musclecars like the 1970 AAR Cuda? It’s actually somewhat keeping with the other retro touch of outlined, white-letter tires, something I haven’t seen on a new vehicle for a while.
+1 on the panoramic roof. My biggest beef with today’s sunroofs is how far back from the front of the headliner they reside. And they’re really not for sunny, 3-season locales due to the way they heat up the interior. In that regard, they actually work better on cooler (if not outright cold) days.
As to the geography of the park brake button, something else that’s irksome about the start/stop ignition is how much better Toyota does it. Not only is the park brake location logical, but I loved how when you stopped and pressed the stop button, it would ‘automatically’ place the transmission into Park. IOW, instead of having a two-step process of putting the transmission into Park, then having to press the Off button (which invariably took an additional second to wait), it was a much easier one-step process. These are the kinds of small attention to details that keeps people in the Toyota fold, despite having the lesser driving dynamics.
Finally, a word is warranted on those electric folding seats. When done properly (as seems to have been done here, particularly with the lower load floor thanks to IRS), the usefulness and, indeed, similarity to the much-liked Stow ‘n Go seats in the Chrysler minivan shows why many choose a large SUV instead of a minivan. Although a minivan is cheaper and enjoys better fuel mileage (check out the new Sienna hybrid with AWD), for a no-compromises, do-it-all, price-is-no-object people and cargo hauler, a large, well-done SUV like the latest Expedition makes a very compelling argument.
If only they’d have gotten more of the details right.
A hybrid minivan does indeed get better fuel economy but the currently sold AWD version that is non-hybrid likely achieves very similar mileage to this vehicle.
And yes, that reflection was irksome when I was taking photos! It kept reminding me of some Mopar stripes or even the Mitsubishi RalliArt logo.
It’s true that AWD will only be offered on the Pacifica gasser and, thus, won’t get particularly noteworthy fuel mileage. But the new, upcoming 2021 Sienna hybrid will have the AWD option and also much better fuel mileage.
Likewise, I would imagine that, soon enough, the Pacifica hybrid will also offer AWD to stay competitive with the Toyota.
Toyota doesn’t do it any better, all Ford products with a traditional shifter will place it in park automatically when you press the stop button. So on Fords that means the dial spins to the park position while on Lincolns the positions between the one you are in and Park will light up in sequence, ie N, the R will light up before P.
I’m not a fan of Fords but glad to hear they got it right by the electronic shifter automatically moving to Park when stationary by simply pressing the Stop button. It’s a small thing, but memorable once you’ve experienced it and had to go back to the two-step process.
It would be even better if the parking brake came on
automatically. I always shift to park before turning off the engine so didn’t realize it did that.
The parking brake WILL release automatically if it’s in gear and you press the accelerator, however I’m not thrilled about that, I’m always thinking it’ll just take off once the resistance is beyond what’s needed to make it release itself.
All the assistance is good, I suppose, but if one wanted to do things manually it would be conventient and not difficult to engineer the button locations where they make more sense. Obviously it’s where it is due to the old mechanical brake location but that was doable by feel all along, this is not.
Well doable by feel is one thing in a car that you are driving for a short period of time and another in a vehicle you own for a while. It took me a while to get used to the switch on the left on my MKZ but it is certainly doable by feel now.
I found out about the fact that they put it in park when you hit the stop button because I grew up mainly driving cars from the era of the locking steering column. On those so you wouldn’t lock the steering while in motion you can’t turn it to the lock position if the vehicle wasn’t in park.
So when I got my first car with push button start and shifter I soon found myself wondering what would happen if I hit the power button while still in drive. In that it makes perfect sense since there is no motion. So when I rented the Expedition with the dial shifter I of course tried it and saw the knob spin itself to the P position and found the same thing in the Focus rental I had.
Interestingly with my Lincoln I still find myself hitting the park button and then the power button, but on those with a dial I found myself going straight for the power button. Not sure how much that was because of the fact that on the Lincoln it is two buttons side by side and on the Fords the dial is on the console and the power button on the dash and how much it was due to the novelty of the knob spinning itself into Park.
Some (most?) new vehicles can be configured for the emergency brake to come on and off automatically when the transmission is put into and out of Park.
Unfortunately, it takes a second or two to function. While that might not seem like much, in actual operation, it’s a PIA, particularly when moving from Park to Drive. You have to sit and wait for the emergency brake to come off before you can actually move. It’s a whole lot faster to manually operate the emergency brake.
My Jag automatically engaged the electronic parking brake every time the trans was placed in park. I hated that feature. I seasonally store the vehicle, and had a bad experience many years ago with another vehicle in storage that developed frozen brakes. I’d rather be in control of it… be it for seasonal storage or longer term storage (e.g., while on a multi-year foreign relocation).
That should have said non-traditional shifter, but I expect most people figured that out.
It’s interesting to me how, for much of the past decade, the Expedition has played a relatively minor role in the (rather uncrowded) large SUV market.
I just looked up the US sales figures on these, and during the years of the 3rd-generation, Expeditions accounted for just 21% of the sales achieved by the GM large SUVs (Tahoe, Yukon & Suburban combined, since the Expedition really competes with all of them). When the 4th-generation Expedition debuted, those %s shot up (in 2019, Expeditions achieved 39% the sales of the GM equivalents).
It’s unclear exactly why the Expedition fell out of favor (I can think of a few reasons, but all speculative), but it seems that this 4th-gen model is more on target. I like these, though my annoying recent experience with Ford quality isn’t exactly a selling point.
Also, I’m glad to see that Ford has vehicles in their press fleet that aren’t fully-loaded examples.
I’m curious how one shifts gears manually here — is it the + and – buttons below the shift knob? Doesn’t seem easy to locate while driving – I do still like the ability to manually downshift even with modern transmissions.
Oh, and great photography again… and cattle.
Yes it is the two buttons. There’s also a tow/haul mode and I suspect the buttons are better served to hold a particular gear rather than indulging your inner Fangio. Yes, Wyoming range cattle this time, no idea of the particular species but they were on the skinny side. I also saw a prairie dog but it was darting across the road and wouldn’t hold still.
The +/- buttons fall right at hand and are the only justification of placing the dial in the center console. I tried it in the Expedition and (European) Focus that I rented last year. But like Jim noted it isn’t really something you would do in daily driving, more suited to hold a gear when towing or when descending hills and you want compression braking.
I’m certain part of the cause of the falling sales was the lack of any significant updating since the initial redesign that added the IRS.
It was interesting to watch the progression of the adoption of the SUV in the parking lot of what for many years was the closest Costco which is located in an expensive suburb. In the 90’s the Explorer quickly became the most common vehicle in the parking lot. That was replaced by the Grand Cherokee, which gave way to the Expedition. That was replaced by the Tahoe. Since then thanks to the proliferation of Utility vehicles from BMW, Audi and Mercedes there is no one Utility vehicle that rules that Coscto parking lot.
Alan Mulally’s One Ford did not prioritize product development resources to keep region-specific vehicles (except F-Series) up to date. And prior to Alan’s regime, there were too many failed attempts to put lipstick on an otherwise carryover vehicle. Let’s just call it “Emperor’s New Clothes Syndrome “.
Nice detailed review, but I’d like to get your take on how it stacks up vs. the competition… i.e., who should buy this vs. a Tahoe? I’m sure they’re both good vehicles, but I’m wondering what to choose if certain features are a priority? Comfort, handling, hauling, etc.
That’s the hard part to detail since I don’t have back to back access. In either case though I try to refrain from making outright recommendation as too much is purely subjective, ie do you tow or just haul people or is the goal to go fast or save fuel or get better resale value or….it’s endless. If I can explain what I experienced over a (short) span of time and if someone reads it and learns something that helps them to make a decision, great, but I would never advocate making any final decision based on what I or any other writer says, you don’t know me and I don’t know you and what I prefer may not be what you prefer, there are trade offs to every aspect.
Very good review.
I nearly bought the prior generation Expy in 2012, but the potential for owning three SUVs in small, medium and large was feeling redundant, and I went for an F-150 instead. (But, they would have been Red, White and Blue, which would have been kind of cool on the driveway.)
The Expy’s independent rear suspension in the last two generations created a third row with comfort and actual utility that simply blows away the Tahoe / Suburban, and I found it curious Ford didn’t make better inroads into Chevy’s dominance in this segment.
But, as you noted the Expy did wither for many years, the prior gen exhibited all the worst traits of the interior of my 2005 Ford Freestyle all the way through 2014, after which a late refresh helped a bit. That may have been another factor in my not buying the Expy, too much like the 2005 car already at home.
For the record, I’m not anti Ford turbo, I own a Fusion 2.0T AWD. While it has decent giddy-up, I also have a Fusion 2.5, and I like its daily driving dynamics better, and it consistently gets about 24.5 mpg vs. the turbo’s 21.5 (granted, hobbled by the AWD).
While the 3.5T in the Expy may be very good, Ford’s Coyote V-8 is awesome, which is why I picked it over the 3.5T in my F-150.
With no apparent advantage in fuel economy, the 3.5T Expy’s main advantage right now is its independent rear suspension. With GM jumping on this bandwagon, Ford may have to rethink whether or not to offer the Coyote in the Expy.
Another excellent review of a vehicle that I’m not sure I have ever seen in the wild (I probably have but didn’t take notice). Which says something about how Ford let the previous generations die on the vine despite having better under the skin engineering than the GM big SUVs. There’s a reasonable number of recent Tahoes and Suburbans around, but these big Fords are strangely MIA.
I thought that the gen1 Expedition was a rather cynical vehicle, designed to be as cheap as possible and sell for as much as possible. And it worked: Ford was banking over $10k profit per unit back then, setting a record for profit margin on a high volume vehicle. But there was no effort to improve their driving dynamics from a F150: crude, lumbering things they were. I’m reluctant to admit it but I rather hated them: big and lots of empty calories, the Big Gulp of cars. This has come a long way; it’s now the Starbucks Trenta of cars. Progress, of sorts.
Well said. It seems this model has come a long way(baby!) compared to the primitive first gen. I disliked them for the same reasons you stated.
Unfortunately I don’t like dial shifters. No need to reinvent the wheel (or lever) there.
But I am not their target customer, as these big beasts cost more than my house. I will see how they hold up when they’re around a “3” or a “4” in the old-car class.
You criticism of the gen 1 Expedition is factually off base. It carved a market between the obsolete full-size 2-door utes and the huge Suburban. It provided a step-up for families that out-grew mid-size utes in either passenger/cargo space needs or trailer capacity needs… without hogging the whole garage. It’s 2nd row seat was substantially easier to access than the Gen 1 Tahoe/Yukon.
The issue at Ford was simple neglect, thinking the benefits of an independent rear suspension could be funded by cheapening the interior and protracting the style change cadence. Wrong Ford. Wrong.
It’s not all a factual statement. I was mostly stating my opinion about them.
As to them being madly profitable, that is a factual statement.
My only hangup with the Expedition has been the lack of a front bench seat compared to the GM competition. In a full-size vehicle, it’s always seemed a bit wasteful to me not to have 3-passenger seating in every row. But that’s been the case for the Expy since 2007.
Super review! It takes time to be this thorough. I do like these a lot….very attractive inside and out. Better looking IMHO than the new Lincoln Navigator twin.
While i’m not opposed to “modern” styling, I very much like a more conservative look such as what this presents (without the FX4 package bits). I’d love the try the Navigator but it’s always had more “dress-up” pieces that are like an extra layer of frosting on a cake – and I don’t usually like the frosting part of the cake.
Jim: Great photos; the shoot area looks quite familiar to me. It seems to be very close to Vedauwoo on the Happy Jack side. I guess you figured out that (weather permitting) Happy Jack is a fun alternative to I-80. The Ford looks right at home up there.
Thank you, I figured you’d recognize it, I looked around at Happy Jack actually when returning via I-80 but didn’t find much to my liking right there, I’ll save it for further exploration for a future trip, although the new Wind Farm to the east looks interesting, just can’t get close enough.
Most of these were taken just off Turtle-something-or-other-Road off 287 (the 4-lane part, which may well be the same area, just to the west).
I remember Happy Jack Rd. from when my wife and I visited Colorado and Wyoming about 15 years ago. We spent a day in Cheyenne, and then drove to Laramie late in the evening… took Happy Jack Rd. as an I-80 alternative and it was beautiful at that time of day.
But then every hotel room in Laramie was taken due to some sort of event at the university (we didn’t have reservations), so we had to drive back to Cheyenne, on 80 this time. But the next morning we got to enjoy Happy Jack Rd. yet again.
Good writeup on a vehicle I almost never see in Tualatin. The first generation Expedition is still the most common around here. The new Expedition looks about as tall as the first generation though it looks like the doors and the body are longer height wise on the new Expedition. I wonder if there is a way to get a column shift and actual key for one of these like the police spec Expeditions have?
I actually didn’t mind the 2016s plasticky interior, then again, and wasn’t in the market for these, I just changed the oil on the ones in the rental fleet.
Good writeup on a vehicle I almost never see in Tualatin.
So it’s not just me that’s not seeing these out here. Good to know I’m not just Expedition-blind. 🙂
You’ll both start seeing nothing but new Expeditions now if history is any quide…
I’ll keep my eyes when driving to Vancouver tomorrow.
The XLT has the dial shifter and push button start, even though it does not have proximity entry.
While they certainly aren’t everywhere and THE vehicle to be seen in in any upscale area like they were when first introduced they are definitely becoming much more common around here.
I rented a 19 Expedition Max last year when I was in Texas and was going to have the need to haul 7 people with me part of the time. Mine was only an XLT so cloth seats, no panoramic roof and since it was Texas no 4×4 either.
The thing that really annoyed me about that was the fact that it had push button start, but not proximity entry even though it uses the same fob as cars with proximity entry. So you had to pull out the fob to unlock the door. Of course that was designed to give you one more reason to step up to at least the Limited.
I echo most of Jim’s take about driving except for the lack of feel in the steering which I think is excellent for a vehicle of this class. It is EPAS so it adjusts the assist based on conditions and the user selectable settings. As I mentioned I was in Texas, so mostly straight roads, but since I was in a city there were a few ramps where I was able to push it and was quite pleased with the feel. Sure it isn’t like a sports car but it really isn’t supposed be on either.
I did do a bit of driving with 8 on board and yes the people who were regulated to the rear, while adults, were on the shorter and skinnier side and one actually commented how roomy the 3rd row was.
I’m guessing the running boards are the ones that they are in the FX4 package because the power ones would be more prone to damage that would prevent them from operating as intended and these do provide some protection for the body.
TEHO but unless one tows 2-horse trailers or 24 ft boats on a regular basis it’s about time for these absurdly inefficient dinosaurs to be wiped from the face of the earth. Barring sheer towing capacity, a turbo-diesel 4 cyl Sprinter is far more capacious, efficient and practical if one needs interior space. I for one will welcome the day when $7 gasoline forces these antiquated whales off the road.
Maybe I’m doing it wrong but Fuelly shows that engine in the Sprinter returning about 21mpg so not exactly frugal. With the added cost of Diesel fuel relative to regular unleaded (never mind maintenance), I’m not so sure that’s the better bet purely on a fuel economy basis.
I like the Sprinter but I’m glad I wasn’t driving it last week when the winds were over 45mph across the road up in Wyoming and northern Colorado.
Come on; give it a break. This thing is rated at 19mpg combined. That’s a 50% improvement from what these got back in 1997 or so. So maybe they’re not your cup of tea, but their not exactly “the absurdly inefficient dinosaurs” you make them out to be.
And in a couple of more years, when hybridization becomes more ubiquitous, they’ll be even more efficient. If Ford offered their diesel in this, it would undoubtedly get at least the 25 mpg combined rating that the F150 diesel gets.
Sure, some buy them for reasons other than for their maximum utility, but until that option is taken away, good luck changing many Americans’ inherent preference for large vehicles.
As Jim pointed out, diesel Sprinters don’t get much more mileage than these, if any.
Are you going to shame me for driving my 19mpg Promaster?
I expect that a Hybrid version will show up once the F-150 hybrid has been out for a while.
But 19 is pretty good for a vehicle of this size and in many areas the usual price spread of diesel over regular will mean that 21 mpg in a diesel costs as much at the pump.
19 mpg/combined is fantastic for any large vehicle, especially something as useful as the ProMaster.
I remember my friend’s Cordoba with the 400 struggling to get 10 mpg.
I respect your opinion and even though I have a 2019 Suburban I wrote up last Fall, I too don’t understand why a lot of full size SUV owners choose them. In the past two weeks, my Suburban has:
Towed the 26 foot boat to the lake twice
Carried kayaks to the lake
Cleaned out a rental house (pulled a trailer of junk to the trash transfer station)
Taken us way back into a 200 acre family tree farm where there are no roads, including pulling fallen trees out of the way (with a chain around the hitch)
A housewife, and a school principal in my neighborhood, also have Suburbans. Why I don’t know….
Maybe the housewife and school principal also tow boats and drag fallen trees out of the way. I agree there are way too many folks driving these kinds of vehicles that don’t use their capabilities, and there is a social cost. But I’ve also learned that a surprising number of SUV or 4×4 truck owners DO use their capabilities, and I’d argue that it may be better to own one do-it-all vehicle than multiple vehicles. I for one find a combined 19-20 mpg pretty amazing for something like this Expedition.
CC Effect … I just saw a brand new CalFire (our state Dept of Forestry and Fire Protection) Expedition this afternoon. I’m curious to look at one up close and see how it’s equipped. As for the e-parking brake and Park controls, I’ve had different experiences with a few recently driven vehicles, so there doesn’t seem to be consistent design even within brands. Our Gen 2 Prius automatically put the “trans” in Park when you shut it off with the button … though the shifter had a Park position, it was a momentary toggle so nothing visibly moved when you shut it off. The parking brake was mechanical so a separate action. My Gen 3 Tacoma with push button start has to be in Park to turn it off; if you turn it off in Neutral it stays in “Accessory Mode”. Again, the parking brake is mechanical. Finally a friend’s late model F150 with column shift has an e-parking brake and as I recall, it’s set automatically when shifting to Park and/or turning off the engine (key) but needs to be released manually. I found that confusing. But I suspect it’s all easy to remember when you own the vehicle and drive it regularly. And honestly, though I’m a compulsive parking brake user, I suspect I’m in the minority.
Nice write up Jim. While this beast of burden is not my cup of meat, I can see folks who could have a good use case for this type of vehicle.
I last rode in a mid 10’s Expedition in the third row; amazingly at 6’0″ and 230-ish pounds, I was comfortable in the snug space back there. We were seven guys going to the sports bar to catch a fussball game; parking at this particular bar was rather limited, by taking one vehicle, we made room for a few other fans to park near the bar.
A buddy of mine has a 14? 15? F-150 with the EcoBoost engine, once it achieves boost (and it does it rapidly) it scoots down the road. My minivan does 17-18 MPG around town, I think he gets the same out of the F-150, while he has a lot more cargo capacity. This Expedition seems display the same traits.
If I had a need for something like this, honestly, I’d spring for the Chevy version. A lot more familiarity and all things being equal, I’d rather deal with a natmo V8. But, if the price were right…
I also don’t understand why more of these are not sold as my experience with rentals is that the Expedition rides and drives notably better than the GM’s largely due to the IRS. However my favorite full size rental thus far has honestly been the Armada. 400hp V8, no displacement on demand, no auto start stop that has to be turned off each time, and it drives smaller than it is, and feels very well put together (they are assembled in Japan).
Excellent review Jim. With your high elevation, I wonder how this effected your impression of the GM 6.2L V8 to the 3.5L EcoBoost? Certainly at your altitude, the Ecoboost would have lost far less power in comparison to the naturally aspirated 6.2L. In addition, the superior low end torque of the boosted engine, surely must have made it feel more peppy than the V8, despite its lower peak horsepower rating.. At lower elevations, the 6.2L seems to generally have better performance, but I would guess at your elevation the EcoBoost would have the performance advantage.
These big SUVs have jumped the shark for me. I had a GMT-400 Suburban and loved the truck. It was one of my best all round vehicles ever. It was the perfect blend of utility and comfort for me; it was a great people hauler and a great work truck. These modern iterations are seemingly focused entirely on comfort and little on utility. I think a crew cab pickup with a 6.5′ box is probably a better replacement for my old Suburban than an actual Tahoe/Suburban or Expedition.
I was just thinking about that last night, yes, that is the case, but in reality there is so much power in both that what’s lost is less materially noticeable than it would be in a lower powered car such as back in the 90’s or earlier – in other words there was rarely a need to ever have foot to the floor and when it was needed (or desired) the power in either was perfectly acceptable. If doing actual performance testing or if I took them to Bandimere Raceway there’d likely be more of a difference.
The Expedition likely outweighed the vehicle that had the 6.2l recently by (I’m estimating) perhaps about 500 pounds as well which would also go some way to reducing any noticeable difference. Of course as you know, if in the market for one, the best idea is to be open minded and drive both to see what works best in whichever application is the one suited for the buyer along with all other parameters, both objective and subjective.
As you say, with the proliferation of longer bed crew cab light duty pickups, the need for a “work” version of this segment has been reduced considerably, thus likely the reason there is no really basic trim in this or any of the competitors.
I’m not a huge fan of this type of vehicle but I guess in Colorado they make more sense than in Cambridgeshire.
Even so, for $70k, I wouldn’t expect the interior “wood” trim to be quite that poor, and indeed, perhaps because of the colour and/or the materials working with the camera, the dash and steering wheel looks a bit un-special. Does it share a basic dash with the F-150?
The styling to me looks a bit Land Rover/Range Rover too – window shapes, lights, corners, rear hatch
I know it’s smaller, if still seating 7, but a Land Rover Discovery at $56k would appeal a lot more