By on February 18, 2014

15Expedition_02_MR

Just like the Navigator, the 2015 Ford Expedition gets a 3.5L Ecoboost engine. No funky tail lights or split winged grille.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

76 Comments on “2015 Ford Expedition Gets The Ecoboost Treatment...”


  • avatar
    cargogh

    That’s the best the front has ever looked. The trucks should copy it.

  • avatar
    seth1065

    They still make this thing, wow thought it was gone a long time ago.

  • avatar
    HerrKaLeun

    It almost would be news-worthy if a Ford vehicle didn’t get the ecoboost…

    I’m not a Ford Fan, but they get into new technology full-force and large-scale. All the turbo-motors, aluminum trucks… Although some problems surface, they seem to keep tham at bay.

    kudos to them, wish them luck.

  • avatar
    James2

    Now why buy the Navigator? Does anyone think these things out? The Lincoln Motor Company needs *a reason* for people to choose it instead of its Ford counterpart. At least give the Navigator the Coyote V8… but nooo…

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Seriously, if the 6.2 is still in production for the 250 it makes no sense not to offer it.

      Besides if OHC is *so* much better than OHV than ford should have no trouble besting GMs 6.2 that gets 15 city 21 highway.
      Which is only 1 mpg less than the ecoboost…. Though I guess that would make the ecoboost obsolete… Can’t have that after all the money already in it!

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Let me applaud Ford for returning to the 21st century with a radio dial rather than their usual tune up/down button.

  • avatar

    I had a 2002 Expedition. The car settled into a sweet spot at 50mph – which led me to drive at about 50 most of the time. Ridiculously spacious compared to the 2003 replacement. Had a great time with my girlfriend in the backseat.

    Went through brakes like crazy.

    I went through a phase – I’m embarrassed about – where I put neon tubes under it. I still don’t know what I was thinking.

  • avatar

    I’m not at all impressed with the Twin Turbo V6. It should be STANDARD on the smaller Lincolns and there should be an optional V8 for the Expedition and Navigator. Looks like dodge is gonna have a great year selling Durangos.

  • avatar
    Atum

    They threw an Explorer with the rear styling.

    http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2014/02/2015-ford-expedition-first-look.html#more

  • avatar
    alsorl

    It’s an ok update to compete with the 2015 Tahoe.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    Once you get over the fact that this car is basically ten-year-old leftovers, it’s…still quite bad, really.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    As with Ford’s other Ecoboost offerings, this seems like too much vehicle for the engine. I doubt that real-world fuel economy will approximate the gamed EPA numbers. I’d rather have a V8 in this tank.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      Truth be told, the EcoBoost 3.5-liter twin-turbo isn’t all that efficient over a V8 to begin with.

    • 0 avatar
      daver277

      You have not seen ‘gamed’ numbers until you’ve seen the numbers used in Canada for the same vehicles. Keeping in mind the Imperial gallon is 20% bigger, the numbers are still bizarre.

      http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/fcr-rcf/public/index-e.cfm

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        It’s a completely different type of rating, much like CAFE mpg (which is not the same thing as EPA mpg). For example, the CAFE goal of 54 mpg translates to a just-over-40 mpg EPA hwy number.

        Other countries seem to do the same thing as Canada–Japan’s and the UK’s ratings are equally unrealistic. The US does it, too, with CAFE, but we also have the EPA system that consumers are actually familiar with.

  • avatar
    JaySeis

    I pushed our ’03 to 156,000. Most versatile vehicle I’ve owned and could roll at 20+ mpg when easy on the gas and sub 55. It would swallow 4 fat guys & 2 hookers with ease, tow my 22′ I/O like it wasn’t there, and it was very dependable up until the tranny lunched. It was the most bland & disguised non-descript SUV around. Perfect for a Mafia cleaner.

  • avatar
    sportsuburbangt

    Whew, I’m so relieved. My 2012 Expedition will still look up to date for at least the next 8 years judging from the refresh rate on these.

    • 0 avatar
      seth1065

      Just wondering what made you buy a 12, what did you cross shop it with?

      • 0 avatar
        sportsuburbangt

        I had a 06, and wanted to upgrade. The fold flat 3rd row seats sold us initially on the 06. I found a 2012 leftover in Oct 12 that the dealer took 10k off the price. It was a great deal and the wife wanted the same truck, its her car.
        We cross shopped the Tahoe/Sequoia/Armada when we bought our 06 in 2009. The layout of the Expedition worked for us.
        I briefly looked at the Durango in 2012, but I liked the size of the Expedition.
        The Expedition is put together very well, no major issues with either one. The 5.4 is a little thirsty, but plenty of power and reliable. Our new one is a 2wd and we get 20mpg on long trips.

  • avatar
    Lightspeed

    Just rented an Expedition Max 3-days ago. Six people Edmonton to Calgary and back. Horrific gas mileage from whatever gasoline engine it had. 17L / 100 Km according to the computer. This at constant 119 kph on flat level ground in cruise control 90% of the 650km trip. PLus that awful touch screen, but not as awful as the one in the Explorer.

  • avatar
    Compaq Deskpro

    I like these. I have to, they’re the last remnants of Old Ford, that made wonderful things like Panthers, Broncos, Rangers, and Econoline vans.

    • 0 avatar
      azmtbkr81

      +1, as Ford’s last remaining SUV I have to like it too. Styling is spot-on. Now if only Ford saw fit to offer a 2 door model with a few off-road bits thrown in I might finally have a suitable replacement for my ’96 Bronco.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      +2, In a world of angry, overstyled Kammbacks with no glass this is three tons of throwback to the happy times of 10 and 15 years ago.

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    This update is ok. I like the Lincoln’s better, but unless they’re going to sell for $6-10k under the Tahoe there’s no reason to settle for an overall 10 year old design.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    Unless one can get some kind of a special deal, there is literally no good reason whatsoever to buy one of these over their GM competitors.

  • avatar
    Arminius

    Explorer/Explorer EL is Ford’s response to the Tahoe/Suburban. I picked up a used EL version 2007 several years ago and it has been one of the best purchases ever. Traditional BOF SUV. Why this over the Suburban? The biggest reason was that the EL has independent rear suspension. As a result there is a more compliant ride. But more importantly this allows for a third row that folds flat into the floor. Versus the Chevy which requires you to remove the third row seats if you want a flat floor. This has been absolutely huge. Also at the time the Ford had a 6 speed transmission versus 5 in the Chevy. Last, the 60/40 second row in the Ford has the 60 on the driver’s side. Therefore the 40 is on the curb side which is where I wanted it. Chevy has the opposite set up.
    Why this over a Durango? That’s like comparing a sub-compact to a full size car. I can seat 8 and have a decent amount of space left behind the third row for stuff (in EL trim). Conversely with the second and third rows down I can lay a full size sheet of plywood flat on the floor with the rear lift gate closed.
    By far one of the better purchases I have ever made. It has been pretty much trouble free from the day we bought it, hauls all the family with room and comfort, can easily get through the logging trail to the camp site in cooled leather seated comfort, and swallows an amazing amount of stuff on my Home Depot runs.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      The chevy has never had a 5 speed transmission. In 07 it was a 6 speed. And the rear seats weigh 30lbs at most, a very cheap trade off to not have to deal with an inheritally cheap out of going IRS.

      The chevy is also much more technologically advanced. OHV is much more efficient, lighter, smaller and powerful than the DOHC that ford uses.

      It may as well be a corrolla without a solid rear axle.

      • 0 avatar
        Arminius

        Apologies for the mistake on the transmission. I never tried to argue the the Chevy was not more technologically advanced. Although I don’t see much difference in the specs of the two engines (’14 suburban has +1 mpg city/hwy, 10+ horse, -30 tq)

        My point was that I favored the benefits of the IRS (fold flat seats, more 3rd row room, nicer ride) than the down sides. The seats could be 10 pounds and it would still be a bigger pain than flipping a lever. Chevy seems to agree as they put that feature into the ’15. And based on the Chevy website this comes at a significant penalty to cargo which they list at 121. Oh, rear seat leg room is actually going down .4 inches and will now be more than 3 inches behind the Ford.

        Again, not saying the Ford setup is better, just different. For my needs the IRS has the right tradeoffs.

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        Our ’07 Tahoe has a 4 speed. And yes in a truck I’ll take a roller cammed OHV valve engine over any DOHC engine. Better fuel economy, less rotating mass to break and wear out and better low grunt. I had an OHC engine in my Toyota and that was the worst thing about that truck when towing.

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      I keep seeing it brought up, but I fail to see how the IRS is a disadvantage on a vehicle such as this. On an off road rig, sure but this class of vehicles is too large to go the type places where the advantages in suspension articulation offered by a solid axle come into play. The IRS is just better in the real world, something the Chevy Faithful have spent years trumpeting when comparing pony cars.

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        Pony cars don’t tow and fullsize BOF SUVs aren’t put on a track unless they have a trailer attached carrying a race car.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        The Chevy faithful? Ford was the one that continued using SRA in the pony cars.

        SRA is superior to IRS on BoF vehicles for several reasons, better for towing, more comfortable, more obedient ride, tougher, better able to accept change.

        There’s a very big difference between CUVs and SUvs, CUVs are throwaway vehicles, SUVs are like trucks, that is they have uses after the next big thing comes hits the market. What use does an expedition have after the first few owners?

        • 0 avatar
          mkirk

          Meh, Ive towed with both and never had an issue with either. The only place I have really enjoyed a solid axle is off road and frankly, unless it had a solid axle up front to match it wasn’t worth much. Frankly I’d like the Ford truck with the Chevy engines in this case. Ill reserve judgement on the V6 until real world reports emerge.

          And they will tow just fine for any owners. Serious towing duty is best served with a truck/fifth wheel set up anyhow.

          Still, were I in the market Id be inclined to wait on the Expedition based on the next F150 or give the GM a look. Either one will serve you well though and I prefer the traditional look of the Ford over the GM models.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            I don’t know my Tahoe handles close to 4 tons of SeaRay cruiser and boat trailer pretty admirably. I’d call that pretty serious towing. And when hooked up, the tongue weight doesn’t cause the rear wheels to have a pronounced negative camber putting abnormal wear on the tires.

  • avatar
    carguy

    With a Ford price tag this will probably make a lot more sense than its Navigator twin.

  • avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

    So, when’s the aluminum Expedition coming out?

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      Hopefully never. Ford has enough issues getting paint to stick to steel…

      • 0 avatar
        Dave M.

        Except for everyone’s paint in the early ’90s, I haven’t seen that much on Fords lately.

        Here’s a game my brother and I play (11 states away from each other). Look at white Chevy/GMC vans and the paint on their hoods. Darned if we’re not over 60% flaked between us and probably 100+ vans. Just that one color, just that one area. Weird.

        Van engine fires on the side of the road? Ford, hands-down.

  • avatar
    Arminius

    Then call me lazy. Having owned a Minivan before stow and go seats I can attest to what a pain it is to remove rear seats. That would only be compounded with the taller ride height of the Suburban. It also depends on how frequently you need to go between seats up and seats out. We go between the two quite frequently so find the trade off well worth it. As way of comparison the EL has 130.8 cubic feet with seats down and the current suburban has 137.4.

    Also keep in mind that the 3rd row in the Ford has more room thanks to the IRS. My soon to be teen and growing rapidly sons thank me (well, they don’t but should).

  • avatar
    Z71_Silvy

    GM thanks Ford for their continued handing over of the car and truck markets to them.

    Does Ford seriously think that slapping on this pig things they bought at the import aisle at Advanced Autoparts and giving it a gas guzzling and problematic V6 is going to make it an anyway compete with the new GM SUVs? Hell, it doesn’t even compete with the last gen GM SUVs.

    Way to phone it in Ford……yet again.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India