By William C Montgomery
April 2, 2008 - 47,593 views
The full-size SUV, species Gigantus Utilitas Amnericanus, stands like a mighty and proud American Bison. The even-toed ungulate’s wet nose nervously sniffs the threatening winds of change that blows across the prairie and buffets its coarse brown mane. For now, the herd stands proud and strong in suburban habitats. But today the mighty beast catches the scent of three long rifle-wielding predators: Panic, Price and Patriotism. Squarely in their sights stands the Ford Expedition King Ranch Edition.
In my quest to pit the new Toyota Sequoia against its American competition, I wanted to compare apples to apples. Unfortunately, at the time of the test, my Texas Ford didn’t have any SUVs in stock that match ToMoCo’s big rig in Platinum trim. The Expedition King Ranch I tested lacked 4-wheel drive and navigation system common to the new Sequoia and “White Diamond” Chevy Tahoe LTZ. Still, I got a gen-u-ine flavor of what The Blue Oval Boyz have to offer in the big and tall department.
Are there ANY stunning beauties in this category? I suppose not. And for people with environmental concerns at the forefront of their consciousness, the expansive special edition Expedition is especially devastatingly hideous. While the bigger-is-better crowd will find it irresistible, the mondo-SUV is, at its core, an unremarkably inoffensive big box hiding behind an F-150 mask. A handful of King Ranch logos branded on the flanks and rear end distinguished my tester from the rest of Expeditiondom.
Open any door and [optional] power-actuated running boards flip down to offer you a convenient step-up. Gorgeous Chaparral leather wraps the steering wheel and covers the seat surfaces, furnishing the cabin like a New Mexico ski lodge. Padded leather–embossed "King Ranch"– tops the wide center console separating the front seats. While this rustic look clashes with the industrial-styled dials and gauges, compared to the frenetic Sequoia dash, the Ford is a serene work of art.
The King Ranch’s fit and finish are remarkable. The tight-fitting steel round vents, for example, feel both precise and robust. One gripe: the RPM and MPH gauges are spaced too widely-– like eyes on a cow. Otherwise, Ford’s “tough luxury” theme is a time-tested triumph.
The Ford matches Toyota’s third-row seating comfort and does it one better. Second-row Sequoia Platinum passengers are separated by a rear seat center console. The King Ranch features second-row captain's chairs sans a center console and egress to the commodious third-row is as easy as stepping between the seats.
Sit at the helm of this suburban behemoth and a major shortcoming becomes immediately apparent. It’s hard to see out in any direction other than forward. Ford’s high-sided gunnels and thick B, C & D-pillars make rearward navigation a job for the mission critical– but optional– reverse camera.
Even without 4WD, the Expedition King Ranch feels heavier than the Tahoe or Sequoia. In fact, I swore I could feel smaller objects (bicycles, strollers, smart cars) drawing into its orbit. In Newtonian fashion, this massive object resists acceleration. And once in motion, the mega-machine wants to stay in motion. Weak binders with overactive ABS and imaginative electronic stability control system sent the brakes anti-locking more often than in any other vehicle I’ve driven.
The 5.4-liter three-valve Triton V8 charged with motivating the Expedition drinks like John Daly in the Hooters hospitality tent at a PGA tournament. In 4×2 trim, the powerplant chugs a gallon of gasoline every 12 miles around town and 18 whilst cruising the open roads. In its defense: 9000 lbs. towing capacity.
Load-leveling rear air suspension does a surprisingly good job of keeping the big rig flat during corners. But the electronically controlled air bladders failed to master the old world Denton County roads that are so patched and cracked that they’ve taken on the look of an unfinished jigsaw puzzle. Neither could the power steering hold this heifer to a straight line for any stretch of time at freeway speeds.
As tested, the King Ranch rings in at $47,695. Pony up for all the toys to bring the King Ranch onto par with the fancy Tahoe and Sequoia (including $4400 four-wheel drive), and the Ford’s MSRP tops $54K. That’s nearly $4K less than the White Diamond and $6K less than ToMoCo’s Platinum. To sweeten the deal, Ford’s currently putting another $5K on the hood to help move their moribund mastodon. Toyota? Not so much.
Log a few miles in the Expedition King Ranch Edition and you’ll swear it has as much interior square footage as a one-room frontier cabin from the days that herds of buffalo wildly roamed North America’s Great Plains. And it’s a much nicer place to spend time, to boot. But its insatiable appetite for unleaded and its porcine driving dynamics are — rightly– driving this bovine to extinction.
Subscribe to New Content Alerts
Back to Top
End of Comments
More Reviews
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:04 am
I’m seriously baffled by all these large SUV reviews. Granted the last few reviews were done by two separate people but the underlying message is the same. The reviewer gives a 6,000 lbs body on frame V8 SUV knocks because it’s not fuel efficient. That’s like saying “I’m in the market for a Class 8 semi truck but they all suck because they only get 10mpg and have vague steering feel.”
It actually sounds like this Ford is better than some of the alternatives; based on seating options and price. But it gets the same number of stars as the Durango because you felt the vehicle lacked the handling of an Audi, and it was hard to see out of. Last I checked visibility out of a school bus is also substandard compared to an A-Body GM product.
Aside from driving them and criticizing their obvious surface flaws (their size and soft suspensions), you don’t really review them as they were intended. Is the load deck too high? Do they have effective dual or tri zone HVAC? Do they have standard Class IV hitches? I can think of all manner of issues that would be better served in these reviews; but instead they just poke fun at the poor mpg.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:22 am
Since the vast majority of these vehicles are used for hauling nothing more than people, I think it is fair to hold them to the standards of other people movers (i.e. handling and gas mileage).
Yes, it may be slightly better than the Sequoia or Tahoe, but that is like arguing that Type 1 Diabetes is better than Type 2. For most people, a CUV or minivan would be a better choice.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:25 am
I don’t view these cars as mere people movers… their intent is to be able to move large families along with their trailers and boats. Granted you won’t see a boat attached to them at the Piggly Wiggly. But when you do down to the lakefront properties in Utah and the Bible Belt, these vehicles hold their own. I don’t doubt that some of these large SUVs will not be used to haul anything more than a soccer mom. But by and large families that will plunk down the dollars are going to get full use of the vehicle. And you’re not testing the full use of the vehicle in these reviews.
You can’t get Class IV hitches on CUVs or Minivans. There’s a reason for that.
Anyway, the star rating system is confusing to me as you have applied it to large SUVs. If you already assume these large SUVs are a disease and cancer on mankind; then maybe you should avoid reviewing them. And the fact that the word “understeer” actually makes it into the Nissan Armada review is … odd.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:05 am
As many of these beasts as you see flying down the Interstates of America at 15 MPH over the speed limit, versus doing any off-road duty (other than driving over curbs in the aforementioned Pig-Wig parking lot); I believe that handling and braking should receive just as much consideration as any other vehicle.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:17 am
I wish gas was still $1.50 a gallon - I’d be driving one of these.
Instead, we are forced into driving little crackerbox cars. Who says our standard of living is not dropping?
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:26 am
I’m suprised you found the ride and steering to be unsatisfactory. It is definitely a huge improvement over the U22x version. I thought the steering felt nicely damped while still providing good feedback but perhaps a little too much off center effort and lack of returnability. Also the fully independent suspension really makes this beast perform on the road. There isn’t any of the axle hop you get in the competition and it is rather nimble (for its size) and yet comfortable. I’m usually very hard on Ford, but I think this is a great truck.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:45 am
Since you can’t account for how many people will be sitting in the Expedition on any particular trip, it’s unfair to judge it almost solely on its mileage. It’s not Ford’s fault if someone decides to buy one as a commuter vehicle.
Used as intended, it is a more comfortable truck than a Tahoe/Suburban due to the independent rear suspension giving it a smother ride and better 3rd row legroom, and it is much, much cheaper than the competition making it a better value.
Take a cross country trip with your family towing a camper, then get back to us on how you liked it then…
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 am
What the manufacturers need to do is offer a diesel option with full B100 approval.
A Power Stroke King Ranch or a DuraMax Tahoe sounds pretty good. Certainly far more appealing than a hybrid.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:13 am
I really like the interior of King Ranch equipped vehicles. The type/quality of leather they use is beautiful, and makes the interior smell awesome. :)
And I would not mind a large SUV like this as a daily driver by any means, especially with my 45min to an hour commute. Expeditions drive pretty well and “easy” for their size. Just need the gas paid for or back at a dollar a gallon…
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:19 am
Wow, all these people ready to jump back into SUV’s if gas comes back down! I hope it keeps rising. (seriously)
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:26 am
“2008 Ford Expedition King Ranch”
I thought it was a new salad dressing. HAHAHA
seriously, I ocasionally drive a cadillac escalade brontosaurus- the thing is porbably as big as this - at speed its OK, feels like your driving on stilts, tho. I suppose there are those who actually need these things - one guy told me that he tows his 6000 lb boat - i asked if he does that twice a year -to the dock and back to drydock in the fall. He stammered that he actually hasn’t done that in 20 years, he keeps it on the chesapeke all year long now, so he and his wife can go to see it occasionally.
Seriously. these are stupidly large monsters, usually driven to work and back with stops at the wall-mart (well what if i see a new swimming pool for the kids? how will i get it home?)
Do I care? Nope. I think they are quaint reminders of times past. In 20 years we will see them in antique car shows, where we will marvel at them much as we do ‘62 caddys. Ah, now THOSE were the days!
PS anyone who would choose to drive one of these things instead of a sweet little convertable sports car probably needs therapy anyway. Self medication with oversized trucks anyone? Freud would have had a ball with that one! So to speak.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:28 am
But the electronically controlled air bladders failed to master the old world Denton County roads that are so patched and cracked that they’ve taken on the look of an unfinished jigsaw puzzle.
Denton County has bad roads? I would say that’s putting it lightly. I’m in Grayson county, home of many, many King Ranch Ford products and roads that are, at least, on par with Denton county.
I haven’t driven the new expedition, but we did own a Suburban for a time. It sounds like they are very similar. That Suburban was terrible going down the highway. If you hit any substantial undulation or large bump of any sort, the vertical motions were fairly well controlled but the truck felt like it was moving laterally as well. No exactly confidence inspiring.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:46 am
Is this new math? I don’t get the star rating system at all. Looking at the individual ratings how do you get an overall of 2? Just asking. Plus I agree with other posters rate it a large SUV and don’t judge it against other types of vehicles. It will do what it is intended to do. A Fit won’t do any of the things this is intended to do.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 am
I know we are all car nuts here, but in general I have never seen a more judgmental group of people then those who rail against SUVs simply because of their lower fuel economy. What business is it to tell anyone what they should or should not be driving. That sort of arrogance and condescension just drives me crazy. Who cares if the only reason someone chooses to buy an SUV is for the image, that’s exactly the same reason for the majority of people buying the Prius. And that’s a perfectly acceptable reason.
SUVs aren’t evil. If all of the SUVs in the world had been replaced by minivans there would be no noticeable difference in our climate ‘crisis’. Many people feel SUVs provide a good compromise of utility, space and comfort. They shouldn’t have to be treated to derision because their choice of vehicle doesn’t meet others approval.
Btw, I don’t own an SUV, I just don’t like seeing one group of people forcing a lifestyle on another. The crusade against cigarettes also sets me off, even though I can’t stand cigarette smoke.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 am
Bill,
I too am a little surprised at the verdict of the ride and the 2-star rating of the Expedition. I’ll admit my bias: I borrow a 2005 Navigator as a tow/haul vehicle for my stuff and I’m quite happy with it. Of course, it does have an absolutely serene 4-corner air suspension, which takes potholed Houston roads better than almost every car out there. But other than that, its much like the new Expedition.
The tow capacity and interior fit/finish alone makes it a three star SUV.
Straight line performance suffers compared to the latest 6-spd/V8 combos from Toyota and GM, but none of these rigs should be too harshly discounted by their fuel economy rating.
Last time I checked, people didn’t buy any of these rigs at gunpoint. If the Expedition goes extinct, so be it. But odds are it will do just fine in the future, taking over the limited role that the full-size Ford Bronco had back in the 1980s.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:13 am
I don’t get this review. While I wouldn’t buy one (no love lost between me and SUVs), but it appears to me that in its market segment, this vehicle is pretty good. Two stars? Based on what? Is the reviewer by any chance confusing a review of a vehicle with judging the market category?
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
“It’s not Ford’s fault if someone decides to buy one as a commuter vehicle.”
Like hell it isn’t. Unfortunately, these things have become Ford’s lifeblood and each one has enormous profit potential compared to more reasonable vehicles and believe me they push them hard. And they push them to people who don’t need them under fraudulent pretexts. It is precisely because Ford (and Porsche, and Mercedes and BMW and Lexus et al) push these things on people who actually need commuter vehicles that we are in such dire straights as a country.
You would have a hard time convincing me of the climate change theory. I don’t buy it. So my arguments against SUVs are not based on that. We had an all time hard winter here, with three concecutive days of snow over last weekend. On a daily basis, I saw SUV’s flipped upside down off the freeway, sometimes two or three in a ten mile commute. People buy them because they think they are good in snow.
They aren’t.
People who really use their SUV or Pickup for hauling and towing do not recieve my ire. But you can tell people who tow a lot: they leave the “stinger” in the class four hitch reciever all the time. I do in my tow vehicle and everyone else I know does. It just too much of a pain in the ass to take out and put back in every time. Not one pickup or SUV in 100 around here has the stinger in the reciever hitch.
This is lake country and boat country. There are huge lakes with lots and lots of boats. People are boat crazy here. And yet the number of times that you actually see a pickup or SUV towing a boat in a year can be counted on one hand. People who have boats obviously leave them in the water the entire boating season, if not year around. You could rent a U-Haul truck to tow a boat twice a year.
I walk through the Walmart parking lot and every, and I do mean EVERY, pickup bed (which are the majority of vehicles in the lot) have beds as pristine and shiny as a baby’s bottom. Commuting down the freeway, every single large SUV has one occupant.
One.
These things suck big time off-road (at least Ford had the courage to leave the King Ranch a two-wheel drive and put IRS on it). The recieved wisdom in the hardcore off-road community is that even the Jeep Rubicon is only marginally acceptable off-road without some serious modifications. Which then leaves the Rubicon undriveable on the road.
There you have it: the vast overwhelming majority of SUV’s are bought as commuter vehicles on paved roads for one person, never used to tow, never taken off-road.
We don’t need no stinking “Manhattan Project” to develop hydrogen or hybrid or electric cars.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:21 am
A Fit won’t do any of the things this is intended to do.
But the Fit will do all of the things this is used to do on a daily basis, as used by 90% of the buyers.
If it takes gas a $3-4 for people to realize the difference between actual need and perceived desire, so be it.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:21 am
SUVs aren’t evil.
Mass kills. The race to control as much mass as possible on the road in the normal course in the name of safety relative to the average driver creates greater danger for the average driver. To the extent evil implies outright maliciousness your point is well taken. But then again, I’m sometimes prone to doling out faint praise like candy.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
I agree that this vehicle (and the ToMoCo ) was reviewed from a standpoint of “why buy it?”. If someone who was a SUV buyer were to review the Miata and complained about it’s lack of trunk space, poor off road performance, and crash unworthiness people would say WTH is with that review?
If TTAC is going to review these specialty vehicles they need to realistically compare them to each other, not to econo boxes, or Jeep wranglers. I like the honesty about the drive feeling, the seats and the build quality, less so for the mileage bitching, comments about how big it is ( of course it’s big) and observations on the political ramifications of owning one ( even if subtle)
I know an owner that could care less about the downsides, she just wanted a large vehicle and is willing to pay the gas for it. Might be hard to understand for some but who are we to judge that decision
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:38 am
I’m glad to see agreement on how the review and scoring process should be undertaken. It doesn’t make sense to compare a car to the whole range of vehicles in the market, the comparison should be relative to it’s competitors or else all sports cars / SUVs / sedans will get the pretty much the same review and score.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:38 am
For anyone that’s dense enough to think gas is going back to a dollar per gallon, keep dreaming. I’m personally glad that SUVs are selling so horribly now, because as others have also said, most people don’t actually need trucks like this, they just think they do. If I had a boat or a trailer, then I’d definitely look into an SUV or a pickup. However, most people don’t haul boats or trailers regularly, yet they still felt the need to buy a truck. Some people say they need one to transport their kids, which is crap. When I was growing up, you either used a sedan, an early Chrysler minivan, or a wagon to haul your kids. My brother and I pretty much grew up with a 1981 Honda Civic wagon, and it worked fine for two adults and 2 kids. If I do have kids, there’s no way I’d buy a gas sucking SUV, or even a CUV just to cart them around. I’m just glad that fuel costs are naturally eliminating these things, it’s about time. My 2 cents…
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:43 am
To the “who are we to judge?” crowd: How much of a jerk does someone have to be before you’ll start judging? With anything?
The cigarettes analogy is a good one: if in a public place and someone’s smoking and you can’t stand it, you’re being inconvenienced and annoyed because someone is putting their own pleasure above the feelings of those around him.
SUVs are the same thing: Obnoxiously large and unsafe to their surroundings, and just because the driver likes to sit high up.
What definition of “jerk” does that not fit?
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:45 am
If someone who was a SUV buyer were to review the Miata and complained about it’s lack of trunk space, poor off road performance, and crash unworthiness people would say WTH is with that review?
Except for going off road, I can’t recall a Miata review that didn’t talk about such things. Noting the drawbacks of any vehicle that deviates from bread and butter expectations is fair game. Would you rather that the reviewer repress those observations? If he or she did, wouldn’t it be that much harder to detect an honest bias that you don’t share? Why complain about honesty? You’re being told up front that from your perspective this review can be taken with a grain of salt. Isn’t that a good thing?
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:52 am
While I tend to agree that TTAC reviews on these super-utes do not focus on what they were designed for, most people are not buying them for what they were designed for. Giving this beast a positive review because it can tow a small village would be like giving the Hummer H1 5 out of 5 stars because its the best at what its supposed to do, go off road. But most people who buy that beast never even come close to testing its off-road abilities. The same goes for this road monstrosaty. More often than not, it drives mom or dad to work and picks up the kids after soccer. My mom had 4 kids and we were carted around just fine in her Acadian.
I’ll be honest. I hate SUVs/trucks in the city. Not because of Al Gore or anything. Its because they are dangerous to other people on the road and near it. In a time when spatial awareness is on the decline the last thing people need is one of these things. My brother-in-law owns a King Ranch F150 and even he agrees. To quote him on driving it in urban areas “Everytime I take a right turn at an intersection, I have to hope there is not a pedestrian within 4 feet of my truck because I won’t see them trying to cross as I make the turn, my truck is too tall”
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:55 am
I’m glad to see agreement on how the review and scoring process should be undertaken. It doesn’t make sense to compare a car to the whole range of vehicles in the market, the comparison should be relative to it’s competitors or else all sports cars / SUVs / sedans will get the pretty much the same review and score.
I think the solution may be for the reviewer to refrain from “scoring” a vehicle if he or she simply can’t relate to the driver of that class of vehicles and admits it. I think that is the case here. The perspective of the review is legitimate, but “scoring” from that perspective probably isn’t.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 am
The defense being mounted for this vehicle makes for pretty thin gruel.
The only reason to own one is for towing. That in itself is a pretty small subset of the people who own these, at least in these parts. Subtract from that people who could tow their boat or trailer with something smaller. Then subtract from the reminder the people whose trailers or boats are left in situ all all summer and get moved twice a year (usually by the marina) and you are left with a very small group indeed.
And for once I’d love to see someone who doesn’t believe in global warming off a cogent argument, not just ‘I don’t buy it’.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:15 am
Ford has its thinking backwards here. A live axle belongs under this truck and the Mustang could use IRS.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:17 am
NickR: And for once I’d love to see someone who doesn’t believe in global warming off a cogent argument, not just ‘I don’t buy it’.
Go to Edmunds.com; there is an entire thread on global warming, and the skeptics have their share of ammunition to back up their arguments. Another good site with global warming discussions is The Volokh Conspiracy, a legal blog.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
Just for giggles it would be fun to hook this baby up to a 9000lb trailer and see what kind of mileage it got. 8-9mpg highway?
I wouldn’t have a problem with SUVs if it hadn’t been for the “light truck” exemptions to CAFE and safety standards that they were designed to exploit. Had that exemption never been in place you would see only a fraction of the SUVs currently on the road, and they would typically be owned mostly by people that made use of their functionality.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:34 am
ctoan: To the “who are we to judge?” crowd: How much of a jerk does someone have to be before you’ll start judging? With anything?
My high school Political Science teacher said it best: “Your freedom ends where my nose begins.”
Don’t like it? Don’t buy it, and the market has made this very clear. The Expedition is well on its way to very low-volume production.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:34 am
The problem with full size SUVs is that they try to be everything to everyone - big towing capacity for road trips, generous seating in case you take friends along, rugged in case you want to go off-road, comfortable for daily commuting and, of course, fast enough not to get embarrassed at the lights. But all this is mostly excess capacity as they usually end up getting used as mini-vans with only very occasional use of the other capabilities. Problem is, this excess capacity comes at the price of insane energy consumption.
SUV lovers don’t take offense - most buyers of sports cars are the same way. They buy a car that can get round the ‘ring in less than 8 minutes but the closest they ever come to racing is taking on a Camry at the lights or exiting the shopping mall parking lot at an unsafe speed.
This is all about our love affair with automotive transportation and, lets face it, the energy prices are taking our toys away. It’s no fun but it is reality - what used to be needs have turned out to be wants. We can only hope that technology will keep up with rising energy costs so can all continue to have fun.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
NickR,
OK, I’ll bite.
I don’t buy the AGW theory because I do not think that we know enough about the climate to accurately predict its future. I challenge you to think of a system on earth with more variables, more inputs and outputs, than our climate and weather patterns.
I don’t buy the AGW theory because anthropogenic carbon dioxide is such a small element of the carbon cycle. The biomass in the ocean is almost entirely made of calcium carbonate. The ocean is a massive sink which carbon flows into and out of. Carbon (in the form of CO2 and other gasses) freely moves between atmosphere and ocean as these organisms die and decompose and as they reproduce and grow. Carbon dioxide is a natural gas vital to all life on earth. It is not a pollutant, nor do I believe it should be regulated as such. If we are to limit the amount of CO2 we release, we should also put a birth-rate cap on corals as the Chinese do.
I do not believe that glacial retreat is a sign of AGW. Glaciers in our current ice-age (yes, we are living in an ice-age) are small and are very sensitive to change, so perhaps they are good barometers. The world has been in a period of general glacial retreat for over 200 years. There were no King Ranch Expeditions then nor coal-fired power plants. The industrial revolution was just getting underway, coincidentally, I believe. Glaciers have been retreating for a long time, and drastic changes in landscape have been noted, but this does not prove one way or the other that humans are warming the planet, merely that the glacial summer ablation rate in many areas is greater than the winter accumulation rate. Not all glaciers are retreating, either. Some are advancing, though these are generally seeing a decrease in their advancement rate. As a side note, I hate AGW PR shots showing a glacier dramatically calving into the sea. This is the sign of a very healthy happy glacier that has made it from a mountain top all the way to the ocean and has reached its maximum length. Large ice sheet are supposed to break off of Antarctica. This means that the floating sheet has become too large to remain attached to the continental ice.
Finally, though we have evidence that the earth is warming, this in itself is no cause for alarm. The earth is a fickle system and has trouble maintaining anything for very long. It warms and cools, sealevel rises and falls and has for the entire history of our planet. The rock record shows us that sealevel is notoriously variable. Because humans cannot comprehend geologic history, we think that the sky is falling whenever the earth is simply undergoing a slight change.
A note to any readers who may have been persuaded in some way or another: I am an educated geologist who has had training in the areas mentioned above. I do however work for an energy company and receive compensation for my efforts, so therefore any idea, thought, or expressions I may offer on any environmental issue must be regarded as pure fiction and are intended for entertainment value only.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Sajeev Mehta:My high school Political Science teacher said it best: “Your freedom ends where my nose begins.”
And I say your freedom ends when it starts obstructing my view of traffic lights.
Or, to reiterate: a public nuisance is when you create unsavory effects (noise, smells, etc.) that extend beyond the bounds of your property. Why shouldn’t this apply to vehicles?
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Count me among those confused by the overall rating. The review sounded fairly positive. The subcategory ratings are mostly threes and fours, with one five and one two. If you do a normal unweighted average based on those scores, you get 3.375. But instead it gets 2 stars overall? Come again?
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Whether the Iraq war was necessary is not the point: right or wrong, high oil prices buy the bullets being shot at my cousins’ three kids over there. I think anybody, pro war or anti, should be horrified by that equation.
RE: GW. When I was in New Zealand this summer, vitited both the Fox Glacier and the Franz Joseph glacier. Each one has access roads a couple of miles long off the West Coast highway. They have the access roads marked with the spot where the glaciers’ terminal morraines were in the 1600’s, 1700’s and 1800’s (presumably before folks started driving SUVS). Ya drive quite a long discouraging ways before you get to the 1900’s and particularly the 1960’s. THe glaciers have actually receeded a tiny amount since the environmental hysteria started sweeping the world and the car craze and its attendant pollution took hold in ernest.
So I can believe GW’s proponents theory that the cause of GW is the internal combustion engine, or I can believe my own lying eyes.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
N85523 :
So, the current cycle of global warming “coincidentally” began at the same time as the Industrial Revolution.
And you get your income from an energy company (though I do give you credit for disclosing that; many wouldn’t).
I consider myself duly bitten.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
To me, this review would be more appropriate as an editorial. Trying to convince people they don’t need these things is not best served in a review.
As an example, look at he recent review of the 2009 MB SL63. This was a good review of the car based on what it was intended to do. However, no mention of the MPG. (the 2007 SL55 earns a combined 14MPG rating, we have to assume the SL63 won’t be any better). Nor any editorializing that no one really needs such a car.
At least the large SUVs have a chance of increasing their effective MPG when they are filled with people and gear. No chance of that in most hi performance sports cars like the SL.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
tonycd,
In response to your first statement, you’re right, I do find it a coincidence, no quotation marks needed.
From what I have gathered on the subject, I believe that there has been significant glacial retreat (especially in mountain glaciers) since the beginning of the industrial revolution. I do believe this is a coincidence and that the factors causing this retreat began before the IR started. Also, when the IR came about, the amounts of CO2 entering the atmosphere via humans was hundreds of times less than it is now, so I do not see a correlation between industrialization and glacial retreat.
Also, I find it an ironic that those of us with geologic backgrounds find it so hard to get work in a field that is not the target of global warming war-cries. The folks who go to school to learn about the history of earth naturally go to work in fields where that historical knowledge can be turned into a paycheck. I feel that too many peoples’ credibility is unnecisarily damaged by public perception, but I most certainly would be biased in that area.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
+1 to what holydonut said. The vast majority of these vehicles are used to their fullest potential occasionally. Just because you see one in the mall parking lot with a solo driver does not mean it doesn’t hall the family on it’s vacation.
I appreciate the reviewer pointing out the superior build quality of the Expedition compared to the Sequoia.
If you are going to buy one of these, get the long wheelbase model. It will have better resale if you care about those things and will be a lot more useful as you own it.
Does this mean we’re getting a Tahoe/Suburban review next?
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
To those who think this is an editorial and not a review, the two are really one and the same. What is a car review but one person’s opinion (i.e. editorial) on a single vehicle? Similarly, the star rating merely reflects the reviewers opinion, and does not have scientific basis that some are trying to ascribe to it. Don’t try to read more into it than what it is.
This topic has come up many times before on this site: The whole point of an auto review is that it expresses the author’s opinion; no more or no less. You are free to agree or disagree, no different from a movie or restaurant review.
I, like most readers of this site, enjoy reading the articles for the opinions expressed, even though I don’t always agree with them. Regular readers of this site will know that the contributors often don’t even agree with each other, which is good.
If you remove the authors’ personal opinions from the reviews, you will be left with little more than a press release or spec sheet. For that, you can just read Car and Driver.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
We had an all time hard winter here, with three concecutive days of snow over last weekend. On a daily basis, I saw SUV’s flipped upside down off the freeway, sometimes two or three in a ten mile commute. People buy them because they think they are good in snow.
They aren’t.
Actually, they are, but they can’t make up for complete idiots. Having owned a 4WD Suburban, I can say that they are very good in slick conditions - if you aren’t a moron.
But you can tell people who tow a lot: they leave the “stinger” in the class four hitch reciever all the time. I do in my tow vehicle and everyone else I know does. It just too much of a pain in the ass to take out and put back in every time. Not one pickup or SUV in 100 around here has the stinger in the reciever hitch.
I take my hitch out when I am not using it so I don’t hit my shins. That doesn’t mean I don’t have one.
This is lake country and boat country. There are huge lakes with lots and lots of boats. People are boat crazy here. And yet the number of times that you actually see a pickup or SUV towing a boat in a year can be counted on one hand. People who have boats obviously leave them in the water the entire boating season, if not year around. You could rent a U-Haul truck to tow a boat twice a year.
I live near a very large, popular lake north of Dallas. I see boats every day and tons on the weekends. I don’t know how many people leave their boats in the water year round, but I doubt it is even a majority of them. Many do, but not all of them.
I walk through the Walmart parking lot and every, and I do mean EVERY, pickup bed (which are the majority of vehicles in the lot) have beds as pristine and shiny as a baby’s bottom. Commuting down the freeway, every single large SUV has one occupant.
That’s amazing. You have never seen a scratched bed or a large SUV with more than one passenger? That sounds a bit of an exaggeration.
These things suck big time off-road (at least Ford had the courage to leave the King Ranch a two-wheel drive and put IRS on it). The recieved wisdom in the hardcore off-road community is that even the Jeep Rubicon is only marginally acceptable off-road without some serious modifications. Which then leaves the Rubicon undriveable on the road.
All of the new Expeditions have IRS-even the four wheel drive models. Also, the King Ranch is available as a four wheel drive. I don’t know who you have talked to about the Rubicon, but from talking to people, reading forums and magazines, and watching some video, I don’t know of very many people who classify it as “marginally acceptable off-road”. I also don’t know of many who have claimed it to be “undriveable on the road”.
There you have it: the vast overwhelming majority of SUV’s are bought as commuter vehicles on paved roads for one person, never used to tow, never taken off-road.
You are right about the off-road use and maybe the towing in most cases, but I don’t know anyone who buys them “for one person”. It may be that only one person is in the vehicle some, if not most, of the time, but I would guess a great deal of them are bought for “family use”, even if they aren’t really necessary for that.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
ctoan : or, to reiterate: a public nuisance is when you create unsavory effects (noise, smells, etc.) that extend beyond the bounds of your property. Why shouldn’t this apply to vehicles?
I see your point, but I’m not buying it. Expeditions are just as quiet and smelly as a regular car. The sound of a Harley with aftermarket exhaust is a nuisance IMO, but I still let the guy on the Hog have his fun.
If there’s a need (or want, in this case) for a big-ass truck that restricts other people’s view and burns more gas than the average vehicle, so be it. Once you regulate SUVs out of existance, its just a matter of time before private use trucks get the axe. Bad precedent.
Let the market, gas prices and public outcry “tell” buyers what to buy.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
The anti-truck crowd is so offended by a truck that isn’t used for hard corp work all the time. Are they equally offended by sports cars that aren’t raced regularly. Why don’t they rally against cars that have over 100 bhp? How do you pick this one product to focus your derision?
Why not start dictating how big a house someone can build on their own property? Why not rally against other products we don’t need. Do you really need a computer, cell phone, or a light bulb in every room? Heck, your oven wastes all kinds of power just to cook. Maybe we should get used to cold food to save energy.
Sometimes rational people buy things they don’t need just because they desire them. Maybe it’s the “evil” corporations planting these ideas or maybe they just like trucks.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
8-9 mpg is probably about right when towing a 6-8000 lb RV. You might get 10 if you’re towing a boat (more aerodynamic)
A diesel pickup would likely average 12-14 mpg for the same weight so you’d have to decide for yourself if the extra cost for a diesel and the different body style is worth it.
8000lbs is about a 28-30 foot RV trailer.
Only the smallest lite standard trailers (17-19 foot) could be towed by a crossover.
Beats staying at a hotel either way.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Consumer Reports said the brakes were weak also.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
To those who think this is an editorial and not a review, the two are really one and the same. What is a car review but one person’s opinion (i.e. editorial) on a single vehicle? Similarly, the star rating merely reflects the reviewers opinion, and does not have scientific basis that some are trying to ascribe to it. Don’t try to read more into it than what it is.
This topic has come up many times before on this site: The whole point of an auto review is that it expresses the author’s opinion; no more or no less. You are free to agree or disagree, no different from a movie or restaurant review.
I, like most readers of this site, enjoy reading the articles for the opinions expressed, even though I don’t always agree with them. Regular readers of this site will know that the contributors often don’t even agree with each other, which is good.
If you remove the authors’ personal opinions from the reviews, you will be left with little more than a press release or spec sheet. For that, you can just read Car and Driver.
If that’s the case, then what’s the point of having a star system, and what’s the point of declaring this site to be a better alternaive to Car & Driver, Road & Track, Motor Trend, and others? People stopped reading those magazines because they felt the editorial staff was too heavily influenced by the manufacturers who got in the way of product reviews.
It’s the same problem here, except the manufacturers aren’t the ones getting in the way, it’s the reviwer’s own personal distaste for SUV’s. I can just imagine somebody like my father who hates sports cars trying to review the Evolution. Huge, ugly wing. Stiff, jarring ride. Peaky engine with nothing down low. Horrible droning exhaust noise. Below average fuel economy. A dimestore interior, save for the Recaro seats. Add that up and it probably would’ve recieved just as low reviews.
We’re not dummies, if a car sucks, then it sucks. But if it performs adequately against its class (despite whatitmay be purchased for), then there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be judged otherwise.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
How does it only get two stars? The breakdown shows only one category at two stars and the rest are 3, 4, or 5. It should need at least 1-2 1 stars in the breakdown to drag the average down to two stars.
This is a much better vehicle than the others that have been given 2 stars on this site.
Were you driving on ice? I’ve never experienced anything like what you describe with the ABS during normal driving conditions.
I’m no fan of big SUVs, but this is one of the better ones. Your overall rating doesn’t match the review or the subcategory ratings.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I don’t like trucks but this truck’s interior is pretty nice. I don’t usually see a lot of light brown leather interior.
The review is totally TTAC which means GREAT.
JBYRNE it is called materialism. Those consumer that bought 3,000 pair of shoes and only a handful are worn.
I am not talking about Imelda Marcos but the American consumer.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Sales of these types of vehicles has gone down considerably but they still sell more Expeditions than;
Saturn Aura
Ford Taurus
Ford Taurus X
Hyundai Veracruz
All Subarus
All Buicks
All Cadillacs
The Mazda CX-7 and CX-9
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
The article also doesn’t give the Expedition enough credit for being the most rational choice within this class of dumbass gargantuan monstrosities. It’s pretty much the only vehicle on sale that can tow a crapload AND seat seven adults in comfort. Meaning it at least has a justification for its size and an excuse for existing. Sort of.
Stuff like the DOHC engine, independent rear, and dropped price (compared to pre-2007) don’t hurt its case either.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Tonight when I leave work I will see the “Captians of Wall St” getting in to their chauffered vehicles. Some will get into $100,000+ MB S-Class sedans, Audi A8s, Lexus LS600s, BMW 760lis, etc. Many more seem to prefer to make use of full sized doemstic SUVs which top out at about $60,000.
In all honesty the guys getting into 5000lb S-Class sedans that only seat 4 people are the bigger wasters of resources. Both vehicles are getting less than 20 MPG. The irony is that the big SUV is about 5x more practical and comfortable. It can also be used for other purposes. If the exec wants to take a few friends home they can simply “hop right in” and enjoy the ride.
While I am not the biggest fan of SUVs they do serve a purpose and are quite useful and handy if you need it.
As mentioned before why jump all over SUVs if you are unconcerned about how wasteful, impractical, and useless the average sportscar is.
IMO any 2 passanger car that weighs more than 3000 lbs is in reality a big waste of resources and fuel. Better yet I guess we should all hate on every soccer mom (and dad) seen driving a 4000lb+ Maxi-Mini-Van with no other passangers aboard. Exactly how efficent is a Odessey or Sienna that being driven to work by mom or dad that is getting less than 20mpg on the street.
Hell for that matter why not ban any single person with no family from owning anything heavier than a Motorcycle. If they live in the city limit them to a moped, they can always rent a car if they need to transport a actually person other than themselves.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
jbyrne:
“The anti-truck crowd is so offended by a truck that isn’t used for hard corp work all the time. Are they equally offended by sports cars that aren’t raced regularly. Why don’t they rally against cars that have over 100 bhp? How do you pick this one product to focus your derision?”
Completely agree that people don’t race their sports cars. But they do accelerate like mad and are alot more fun to drive, even in normal driving situations. Thats the main reason people buy sports cars. They are fun, even if you are not racing them.
Besides that, there is huge difference between buying a sports car because you like it and buying a large SUV/Truck because you like it…sports cars are not more dangerous to other people on the road like SUVs/Trucks are. A sports car can stop 60-0 in 100 feet, an expedition takes an additional 40 feet, often 25-30 ft more than a normal car. Sports cars are around 2000 to 3000 lb on avg, an expedition is around 5570. Which would you rather t-bone you given the choice? One could argue that people who buy sport cars are doing everyone else on the road a favor because they have great accident avoidance ability and are less likely to turn you into a pancake if they hit you. And you can see people standing beside you when you are in one.
The fact is, there are many maneuvers to avoid accidents that sports cars, and normal cars for that matter, can perform that SUVs/Trucks simply cannot due the laws of physics. They restrict visibility of other drives, are more likely to kill other drivers in a collision and limit the ability to avoid an accident…or even stop in time before causing one.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Besides that, there is huge difference between buying a sports car because you like it and buying a large SUV/Truck because you like it…sports cars are not more dangerous to other people on the road like SUVs/Trucks are.
If this was wikipedia this statement begs for a “Citation Needed”. Sports cars are more dangerous to other people on the road because as you say, “they do accelerate like mad and are alot more fun to drive, even in normal driving situations.” Which means of course that sports cars encourage the drivers to drive/accelerate/corner faster then they would do so otherwise in a conservative Taurus. Both types of vehicles are perfectly safe in the hands of responsible drivers who understand the limitations of their vehicles. Likewise both vehicles are unsafe in the hands of irresponsible drivers. Sports cars may have great accident avoidance ability, but they also encourage the drivers to drive much more aggressively. I think you will have a hard time arguing that sports car drivers are making the roads safer for the rest of the population.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
frizzlefry :
The safety of Sportscars………….
Please tell this tale to my friend’s family. His mother was killed when a 1985 300zx (a sportscar) basically cut her Taurus in half back in 1991. She she was T-boned!
Many sportscars are made with extremely rigid bodies and are densely packed full of Engine and other equipment. These things can do just as much damage as an SUV. Look if you car gets T-boned by a Semi or hit in the side by a cruise missle it anit gonna be pretty.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Wow, I didn’t realize how safe sports cars are. Let me give you a physics lesson. Kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared. That square term really adds up as the speed increases.
A couple months ago a WRX was torn in half, laterally, after smashing into a pole going 100 down a residential street not far from here. It doesn’t seem like the brakes and quick steering got them out of that pickle. Three 20-something year olds died.
I have an SUV and I just cruise. I know the limits of my vehicle and I don’t exceed them.
Why not get rid of panel trucks like those used to deliver furniture? Their center of gravity is probably feet above my SUV. Somehow they are not causing an epidemic.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
The other thing about this whole “SUV’s are more dangerous b/c they are bigger” debate misses the fact that most automotive fatalities are the result of single car collisions. In these, bigger is better and safer, always. Run into a tree at 50 mph in a Yaris or an Expedition, the Expedition driver will survive much more often.
As for sports cars, look at insurance premiums. They are far higher for sports cars than SUV’s.
For your viewing pleasure, deathrates by vehicle class, per 100K vehicles, 2004:
Compact Cars 17.76
Compact Pickups 16.87
Subcompact Cars 16.85
Midsize SUVs 16.16
Standard Pickups 13.87
Full-size SUVs 12.34
Full-size Cars 12.16
Midsize Cars 11.49
Minivans 11.09
Large Vans2 9.34
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Count me as another who usually removes the hitch ball from the trailer receiver. It does a number on shins.
For you good posters who think full grown SUV’s are immoral, get a sick feeling seeing a lady driving one to the store and have nightmares about getting crushed in their Jetta by a steroidal SUV, better not visit Terxas or the southeast US anytime soon.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
All,
Let me remind you that my comments are based on back-to-back-to-back tests of the Toyota Sequoia and Chevy Tahoe. I don’t expect a 6,000 lbs vehicle to get gas mileage like a Prius or handle like a Porsche. In this context my criticism of the Expedition’s gas mileage and handling are because it gets the worst gas mileage of the three and handles the poorest.
Of these big boys, the Expedition is the piggiest. The steering was vague. It handled like I was pulling a load of lead bricks. And it didn’t have the best ride.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I completely agree that, if you are in an SUV, you are safer. No doubt. And I have no doubt that some people who do buy sports cars drive beyond their skill level and die. And Im sure some people who drive SUVs drive beyond the SUVs limits and crash into pole and live because of the sheer mass of the vehicle (you have to be pretty skilled to push an WRX to its limits, its pretty dang easy to drive beyond an SUVs limits…just crank the steering going 40 and try to recover control of the vehicle) . If you drive a WRX and wrap it around a pole and kill yourself, thats a stupid decision that affected only yourself.
I’m referring to SUVs being more dangerous for OTHER people. Not the people who drive them. And if someone buys a mega-ute because they want to be safer, its at the expense of those around them who may get into an accident with said mega-ute while driving a car. Then many people who normally would drive cars buy bigger SUVs to be safer than their neighbor who bought an SUV and so on and so on. Vicious cycle goes on. Thank god for high gas prices.
And as far as panel trucks or buses for that matter, you need to get a special class of license and to do that you need to learn how to drive those large trucks/vehicles and pass a test.
Some moron who can’t even parallel park a mini can buy a Expedition or other mega-ute as long as they have the cash…and the idea that guy is driving around in a 6000lb vehicle with blind spots around 70% of the vehicle scares me.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I wouldn’t be caught dead in one of these, “look at my SUV, even though I have no need for it, it’s bigger than your SUV”, P’OS. IMO. I always resisted buying whatever SUV my lovely, but auto clueless wife liked. I wouln’t buy any new vehicle with a V8 unless it was a car. Proud owner of a 2008 Chrysler 300C AWD. 5.7L Hemi. 15/23 mpg. with MDS. Like an old vacume gauge, it determines light load conditions and cuts off 4 of 8 cylinders. In normal driving it seems like it’s in “Fuel Saver Mode” 85% of the time. It really is undetectable. Among the 120+ read-outs available in the driver’s info center in the middle of the gauges is a 0-60 timer. 5.69 seconds. Drive whatever you like. Just don’t piss & moan about gas prices. While we’re at it don’t piss & moan because your ARM went up and you didn’t realize that it could happen.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
In fact, the unbridled construction of huge McMansions (which could concievably be considered the housing equivalent of the full-size SUV) are causing some areas to do exactly that due to the inordinate and unnecessary strain on an area’s electrical power grid and infrastructure.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Thats the big problem sumitomo, the auto clueless are often times the people who buy those mega-utes. There is some dumb blond in my neighborhood who drives that Toyota tonka wheels truck (FJ Cruiser) who has almost hit ME twice as I have been entering a crosswalk as she has been turning. I even saw her knock the coffee out of some guys hand once.
There are alot of farm types where I live (Calgary) and I have no worries about those guys in their trucks. Not only do they use them for what they were intended, they grew up in trucks. Learned to drive in trucks and are perfectly capable of driving those trucks safely. Problem is, those guys are not spending the 70 grand on mega-utes. The guys who learned to drive in dad’s BMW and are finally making what dad did are buying Escalades and don’t realize that they need 40 more feet in emergency braking situations to stop. A friend of mine had to slam the brakes on her volvo about year ago. The suit in a turbo cummins truck behind her had to slam on his brakes. He was not tailgating…but her volvo had to eat that extra 40 feet he needed to stop. The dodge logo was a foot from the back of her head when he finally stopped. And her Volvo had been pushed another 10 feet, into the car in front of her. She broke her arm and 2 ribs. 8 months of rehab. Thankfully, his investment paid off…he was fine. My friend went away in an ambulance.
Im sure some people are very skilled and know the limits of their SUVs and always give themselves 40 feet more between the car in front of them. But there are also people like in the clip below that buy SUVs too….
http://jalopnik.com/373900/italian-parallel-parking-for-beginners
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Rudiger,
Yeah, I know. I actually live in one of those places, Boulder CO!
Ostensibly these practices are about the environment but I think other motives are at play. I would hardly call the McMansion trend unbridled. We are not talking about 20,000 sq foot Mansions here. The proposed limits are more like 5,000 sq feet. A big house no doubt but a mansion? With a gang of kids it may not even feel that big.
It seems like people always want the limits set just outside of their situation. I actually heard a woman in one breath talking about these dreaded McMansions and in the next tell me about her new condo she just bought in the mountains. Why don’t we just add up the total square feet you own no matter how many houses?
The problem with all these limits is who decides?
If you want to do something good for the environment then put a non-lead bullet in your head. Like it or not, we all consume. Judging someone for consuming a little more or a little less is really pretty silly. I’m not so ready to trade liberty and property rights for “the greater good”.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:19 pm
In these, bigger is better and safer, always. Run into a tree at 50 mph in a Yaris or an Expedition, the Expedition driver will survive much more often.
Not always. Body-on-frame vehicles often have a very difficult time with this. As just one example, the Ford F-150 Heritage tested by IIHS at 40 mph recieved a “poor” rating.
F-150
The Tundra and Silverado got the same basic scores, with a few very small discrepancies. Meanwhile, the Ford Ranger and my (much smaller) Mercury Mystique/Ford Contour got “Acceptable” ratings at the same speeds. (Edit: Sorry, I was wrong, they also got “poor” ratings, didn’t remember this correctly).
It’s all about the strength of the chassis versus build quality and engineering. You can build an incredibly safe compact that can perform really well at 40 mph, because it will be light enough to bounce back. Meanwhile, the Expedition will receive the brunt force of the hit and will be too heavy to recover.
As just one example, the Toyota Scion xB, while not being so good in side-impact, is very safe in frontal crash tests:
here That’s also at 40 mph.
Edit: One other thing:
Yes, the IIHS site says you can’t judge cars across classes, and yes, the larger vehicle will often offer more protection. That said, in an accident I’d rather be in a midsize car like the Fusion that gets a Good rating than a fullsize like the F-150 that gets a “Poor”, regardless of “more protection”. At 40 mph, that F-150 accident is horrific, and the Fusion is still crashed at the same speed.
Also: I remember a British car magazine doing a test between a subcompact versus a massive Volvo car. The subcompact won, because of its being newer and better designed. There are all kinds of variables in judging crash worthiness.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I don’t drive an SUV and the closest thing I’ve ever owned to one was a Jeep CJ and a Ford F150. Further, I am unlikely to ever buy anything akin to an Expedition. But the points of criticism seem unfair for the vehicle type.
First, regarding the general attack on fuel efficiency levelled at SUVs and trucks in these pages: What’s the difference between a 14mpg truck and a 14mpg performance car? Forget about the EPA figures. You can actually get 14mpg from a 4×2 Expedition in the city, and 20mpg on the highway. I know, I’ve rented them, plus I got that consistently out of a 5.4L F150 quad cab that I once owned. But what about a Mazda RX8 that delivers 15mpg average to its owner? You can get 29mpg highway out of a 6.2L Corvette, but what’s the mileage when it’s driven like a sports car? You can easily drive a turbo’d Subie or Audi RS into the low teens in mpg. A Porsche around town is no miser. And a BMW 7 series or M5, Maserati Quattroporte, Mercedes S class or any AMG, Aston, Bentley, Ferrari all may as well be body-on-frame SUVs for the fuel economy they deliver. This criticism reflects a double standard.
Next, as mentioned, build quality is high on an Expedition. They tend to be quite reliable — more so that many of the vaunted performance cars that cost more and do no better on real-world fuel economy.
Do SUVs block my forward view? Yup. Just like the explosion of vans and customs did in the 1970s. View obstruction comes and goes with the surges of interest in upright vehicles. CUVs aren’t much better.
I think people have to realize that an attack on any specific vehicle type is an attack on the private automobile in general. Let radical greens torch or vandalize SUVs, and your favorite vehicle category may be next. Let politicians set allowable vehicle configurations, and start thinking how you’re going to like buses, light rail, and other people’s schedules. The demonization of vehicle types will undermine beloved sports cars, too.
By the way, allegedly weak brakes are a cinch to upgrade. Got a bleeder, socket set, pads and discs?
As big enclosed trucks go, this Expedition KR is comfortable, reasonably brawny and fairly refined. As a multi-purpose vehicle, it is intentionally a compromise over any specialized alternative. I agree: the perspective of a reviewer who has the knowledge and willingness to evaluate the Expedition by SUV criteria would yield a more legitimate assessment.
Phil
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Sorry, reposted edits in my first post.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
But its insatiable appetite for unleaded and its porcine driving dynamics are — rightly– driving this bovine to extinction.
I’m inclined to believe that the same sort of crowd that used to buy big floaty sedans and wagons back in the old days flocked to these supersized SUV’s when they did. Not everyone chooses cars for the handling.
As happened back during the last fuel crunch, this thing will die with a whimper, because it’s too ravenous for most people to keep filled with fuel. I don’t see the controversy in pointing this out, this is just market reality.
But as for the porcine aspects, I don’t agree. Some Americans actually prefer cars that don’t handle well, oddly enough. They want the brawn, and nimbleness and brute force don’t compliment each other.
But at $3.50/ gallon, they’ll buy CUV’s and learn to deal with the rightsizing. They won’t be buying this.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Yes, the IIHS site says you can’t judge cars across classes, and yes, the larger vehicle will often offer more protection. That said, in an accident I’d rather be in a midsize car like the Fusion that gets a Good rating than a fullsize like the F-150 that gets a “Poor”, regardless of “more protection”. At 40 mph, that F-150 accident is horrific, and the Fusion is still crashed at the same speed.
I’d rather be in a 2005 or later F-150 that gets a good rating across the board rather then the previous generation from your link.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
“The solution to our traffic problems is busses. Get’em off the road!” -Arj Barker
“I think people have to realize that an attack on any specific vehicle type is an attack on the private automobile in general.” -Phil Ressler
Sorry Phil, I’m with Arj on this one. I can be against assault weapons and in favor of shotguns, against defamation and in favor of parody, and against 15 mpg SUV’s and in favor of 15 mpg sports cars. Marvelous how the human mind is capable of subtle distinctions, isn’t it?
Giant SUV’s block my view and my way. Their supposed safety comes at the expense of mine. A country without them would be a better country. In fact, I just came back from such a country and it was better (automotively speaking). Small fast efficient cars. Well trained and disciplined drivers. Highways without speed limits.
Strange how returning to the truck infested roads of the Land of the Free feels all cramped and hemmed in.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I’d rather be in a 2005 or later F-150 that gets a good rating across the board rather then the previous generation from your link.
Agreed, although I wouldn’t want to be hit by one.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
“The other thing about this whole “SUV’s are more dangerous b/c they are bigger” debate misses the fact that most automotive fatalities are the result of single car collisions. In these, bigger is better and safer, always. Run into a tree at 50 mph in a Yaris or an Expedition, the Expedition driver will survive much more often.”
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
I don’t mind people driving SUV’s. Their reasons are their own, and although I dislike them I also realize that is nothing more than my opinion, and other people are entitled to their own, different opinions.
No, what bothers me about SUVs and trucks is the sentiment I quoted above. It’s true that in a crash between a Yaris and a King Ranch, the big truck will be safer; due to its greater mass the deceleration will be significantly less and the occupants won’t be injured as badly. And in your crash with a tree, the argument is still valid if the tree is sufficiently strong to stop the Yaris in its tracks but barely slows the SUV at all, for the same reason.
However, that’s where it ends. In an evenly matched crash (SUV vs SUV, Yaris vs Yaris) or a crash into an solid stationary object (large tree, bridge support, brick wall), I would pick the Yaris every time. In fact, I’d rather crash a Smart ForTwo into a brick wall at any speed than try the same thing in an SUV.
It’s got nothing to do with mass and size - you’re going to come to a sudden, complete stop in any vehicle. And in truth, the SUV may be more intact than the Yaris - after all, it is more solidly built. But this isn’t the good thing people seem to take it for. Ignore the vehicle altogether, because that’s not what matters. Think about the people. In the truck, the solid frame and sturdy build means the vehicle doesn’t have any give, and the passengers have the honor of decelerating with the full force of the impact. In a compact car, with carefully designed crumple zones and passenger protection (yes, even super-stiff sports cars have to meet these standards, yet SUVs do not), the car absorbs a significant portion of the crash energy, destroying itself in the process. As a result of this, the passengers’ bodies have a much gentler time.
Please, everybody, remember that. In a crash between a small car and a big truck, the truck wins. But in any evenly-matched crash, the small car is a much safer place to be.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Forget the Expedition, I want to see how big the new Ford Excursion will be…….
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 pm
One poster mentioned single-vehicle crashes as the most common type of collision, and stated that the truck/SUV driver is better off in those cases. I have no statistical data to back this up but don’t rollovers make up a large percentage of single-vehicle crashes? And since SUVs are more prone to rollovers, wouldn’t that offset the “benefits” of hitting a tree or other stationary objects? I’d much rather lose control in a Yaris at 60 than in a truck. Plus, drivers of larger vehicles often drive faster because they don’t have the same sensation of speed as they would in a smaller car.
If driven within its limits, an SUV is not necessarily a danger to its surroundings. The problem is, there are thousands of them out there and statistically, a great deal of them are driven by unskilled or clueless drivers. Perhaps by people who barely passed their driving tests on their third try in a Civic. With driver skill and driver education being what it is in North America, I wouldn’t mind seeing additional training and testing being mandatory for vehicles above a certain size/weight. As long as is doesn’t become just another gov’t sponsored cash grab…
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:15 pm
casper00,
The Excursion was discontinued in 2005. The long-wheelbase Expedition EL replaced the Excursion. That left Ford without a 3/4 ton SUV and no rear solid-axle SUV’s. Most individual consumers won’t moan the loss of the Excursion, but the truck found a following in several industries such as emergency services, personnel transport, and the oil patch.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
you guys are so serious about the star system and how it’s totally unfair to the specialized vehicles like large SUVs.
what i don’t get is why anybody actually takes these types of vehicles seriously. think about it - aren’t we all car lovers? don’t we enjoy DRIVING vehicles? why in the world would we take such an ill-handling mess of a vehicle seriously, even for “what it is?”
at the end of the day a gas-guzzling S-class or 7-series is a triumph of engineering. a miata is tons of fun. a large SUV is just a crude pick-up with a leather interior. am i supposed to be impressed that they can tow lots of mass?
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:03 am
There was an incident at one of my companies offices last month. Some pipeline engineer backed his Ford Explorer out of his parking spot and almost hit someone walking the parking lot. Since then, the safety manager has made it an office rule that everyone must back into their spots for safety reasons, so they can drive out forward so the SUV drives can actually see if someone is walking in the lot.
Since the rule was implemented there have been 6 reported parking collisions. Each one involving an SUV or truck damaging neighbouring vehicles as the drivers were trying to back their beasts in. Heh.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:18 am
There was an incident at one of my companies offices last month. Some pipeline engineer backed his Ford Explorer out of his parking spot and almost hit someone walking the parking lot. Since then, the safety manager has made it an office rule that everyone must back into their spots for safety reasons, so they can drive out forward so the SUV drives can actually see if someone is walking in the lot.
I wish those poor saps could try the same maneuver in a Subaru Forester just once. A toddler would have to be less than maybe five feet from the rear bumper not to be seen. You start to take the visibility like that for granted, to the point that you have a hard time tolerating blind spots. I couldn’t stand to drive a traditional SUV these days without a backup camera. I can’t just put ‘er in reverse and hope for the best day after day. My world is too full of people unaware of my status as the center of the universe. It gets downright annoying sometimes.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:04 am
The Luigiian : Not always. Body-on-frame vehicles often have a very difficult time with this. As just one example, the Ford F-150 Heritage tested by IIHS at 40 mph recieved a “poor” rating…I’d rather be in a midsize car like the Fusion that gets a Good rating than a fullsize like the F-150 that gets a “Poor”, regardless of “more protection”. At 40 mph, that F-150 accident is horrific, and the Fusion is still crashed at the same speed.
Which is fine, if you live in the dream world of the IIHS. How often do people hit immovable objects like brick walls, relative to other things on the road. (like Camrys, sign posts, trucks, etc)
——————–
crazybob : In an evenly matched crash (SUV vs SUV, Yaris vs Yaris) or a crash into an solid stationary object (large tree, bridge support, brick wall), I would pick the Yaris every time. In fact, I’d rather crash a Smart ForTwo into a brick wall at any speed than try the same thing in an SUV.
There are almost no crumple zones in a Smart ForTwo, just look at the crash test that Fifth Gear did: the human inside took a large portion of the crash force.
——————–
crazybob : It’s got nothing to do with mass and size - you’re going to come to a sudden, complete stop in any vehicle.
Depends on what you hit. Again, the IIHS is good about skewing facts with their brick wall.
——————–
crazybob :And in truth, the SUV may be more intact than the Yaris - after all, it is more solidly built….In the truck, the solid frame and sturdy build means the vehicle doesn’t have any give, and the passengers have the honor of decelerating with the full force of the impact.
Any give? Please tell me you are kidding.
Everything from Crown Vics to full-size trucks have crumple zones just like a unibody car. (they just crumple less when hitting a Yaris) Look at crash tests of everything from a Hummer H2 to a Ford F-150, everything has crumple zones.
The late model SUVs I see in body shops have front clips and core supports that crumple if you look at them funny.
I mean, body-on-frame cars had crumple zones in the 1970s!
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:42 am
RE: Star rating
As noted, the 2-star rating for this vehicle didn’t make sense. It was also not the rating I submitted with the review. I brought this error to the attention of the editors last evening and they corrected the rating to 3 stars. Yesterday I attended the Dallas Auto Show and didn’t get to see the published result until late afternoon. As RF and FW will attest, I normally watch these things like a hawk and get any needed corrections in early.
Stay tuned for my review of the Tahoe LTZ White Diamond edition (submitted) that should complete the context for some of the remarks I have made regarding the Sequoia and Expedition.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:10 am
I’m inclined to believe that the same sort of crowd that used to buy big floaty sedans and wagons back in the old days flocked to these supersized SUV’s when they did. Not everyone chooses cars for the handling.
Quoted here for accuracy.
I completely agree. It was no small coincidence that the Arlington plant stopped building the B/D body cars in 1995 and went to the Tahoe/Yukon.
Let me state for the record that I have no concern whatsoever if vehicles like the Expedition are reduced to a specialty vehicle niche. As long as it is still available on the market.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:32 am
It must be murder now if you are one of the people who drives one of these. Here in Toronto, gas spiked 3.4 cents/litre overnight, up to 111.9 cents/litre ($4.25/US gallon). That would make for a truly frightening stop at the pumps.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:54 am
Sajeev Mehta: There are almost no crumple zones in a Smart ForTwo, just look at the crash test that Fifth Gear did: the human inside took a large portion of the crash force.
..
There are almost no crumple zones in a Smart ForTwo, just look at the crash test that Fifth Gear did: the human inside took a large portion of the crash force.
The crumple zones on any body-on-frame vehicle are more of an afterthought, and often the engine ends up in the driver’s lap and the steering wheel punches them in the chest. Yes, there’s give in the car, but it’s not where you’d want it to be. In contrast, a modern unibody car directs crash energy around the occupants and leaves the passenger area mostly intact.
And I don’t think you must have watched the full version of the Smart ForTwo test Fifth Gear did. Here’s a link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=cOn7OTd_iDk
It really doesn’t seem to do too badly - when crashed into concrete at 70 miles per hour. Before that test, they showed it being crashed into other small cars and even something as big as a Merc S-Class, and the Smart did brilliantly. It only got borderline at ridiculous speeds - I’ve never seen an SUV tested at 70, but I suspect the results would have been horrific.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
crazybob: though you now concede that SUVs have “give”, why exactly do you think their crumple zones are afterthoughts? This doesn’t hold water with me because I have seen SUVs mechanically crumple just like a unibody car.
Afterthought or not, this flies in the face of the strengths of body/frame vehicles and their proven safety advantages (laws of physics) over lighter unibody vehicles.
I can’t watch YouTube at work, but I do remember them saying the ForTwo did its best to channel energy away from the occupant, but the occupant still takes more trauma because of its lack of passenger car-like crumple zones.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Vehicles such as the Expedition and the late Excursion have always been around as specialty vehicles built by custom builders.
Long before there was a “Ford Suburban” or a “Ford Tahoe” available at all Ford dealers,there were conversions sold by individual dealers.
A former wife of mine was a “horse person” who subscribed to Horse People magazines. Despite the fact that I think that I’d shoot myself if forced to rely on those nasty beasts instead of motorized transport, I will read anything if I’m sufficiently bored.
These rags were full of ads in the back for Ford and Dodge truck-wagon conversions way back in the late ’70s/early ’80s.
The ones I remember seeing in-the-metal were practical vehicles with sensible seats and hose-’em-out rubber-matted floors, unlike the factory-built Silly Useless Vehicles of today.
As recently as the mid-to late ’80s, Ford and Dodge farmed out crew cabs to outside makers because they were too low-volume to justify doing in-house back in the age when only those who really needed one bought one.
People who really need oversize transport have always managed to get that need filled. If the mass-produced stuff disappeared, I’m sure that motorhome, hearse, and van conversion people would get back into the market.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
NoSubstitute: Sorry Phil, I’m with Arj on this one. I can be against assault weapons and in favor of shotguns, against defamation and in favor of parody, and against 15 mpg SUV’s and in favor of 15 mpg sports cars. Marvelous how the human mind is capable of subtle distinctions, isn’t it?
Actually, you are proving Phil’s point, because the campaign against assault weapons is a front for a total gun ban, and when the assault weapons ban expired, even its proponents admitted it had made no difference. It was all for show (and an attempt to create a “wedge” issue to promote gun control that was based on emotion, not fact).
Being against “assault weapons” because you are concerned about “safety” or “preventing crime” makes about as much sense as being against SUVs because you are concerned about highway safety.
If you are really concerned about either issue, you should be able to distinguish between effective measures that will really combat the problem, as opposed to meaningless measures that are largely symbolic and strive to demonize all guns and cars.
NoSubstitute: Giant SUV’s block my view and my way.
Old people in Buicks, Town Cars and Avalons block my way, too…perhaps we should launch a campaign against them as well.
NoSubstitute: Their supposed safety comes at the expense of mine.
They come at the expense of your safety in your imagination.
We have more SUVs on the roads than ever before, and the roads are safer than ever before. Check out the latest figures (for calendar year 2006, I believe) on the number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.
NoSubstitute: Highways without speed limits.
Except that, on the national scene, many of the people who go into hysterics at the thought of anyone driving at 80+ mph on a limited access highway are some of the most vocal SUV critics. So getting rid of SUVs isn’t necessarily going to pave the way for higher speed limits (and these people were squawking the “speed kills” mantra long before SUVs became popular).
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:26 pm
It’s unfair to use the 2004 F-150 heritage as an example of how poor a new SUV or Pickup will be in a crash. The 2004 up F150 scores a good in the IIHS tests. The Expedition gets 5 stars from NCAP.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Sajeev Mehta: though you now concede that SUVs have “give”, why exactly do you think their crumple zones are afterthoughts? This doesn’t hold water with me