For a while we went with the disposable minivan concept for my wife’s vehicle by owning back to back cheap Dodge Caravans. This worked fine for a while but then she had the need to have some kid’s car seats installed in her vehicle. Unfortunately the older minivans were not new enough to be equipped with the safer and easier to use Latch system. As a side story my wife has always wanted a giant SUV, probably not this exact one but rather something along the lines of a Cadillac Escalade. This one sort of fell in her lap as a trade for work arrangement so it is the one she got.
This Expedition had a neat pearl paint that does not really photograph well but looked quite sharp. Or did when the SUV was new. As you can see from the hood the paint did not adhere well to all surfaces. Both the aluminum hood and hatch had serious adhesion paint issues. It sort of fell off in chunks so there must have been an issue with the formulation or preparation. I found out later there was a TSB for this which I am not sure if it extended to Canada but probably not to us as later owners.
“Some vehicles may exhibit a bubbling or blistering under the paint on the aluminum body parts. This is due to iron contamination of the aluminum panel. . . . Ford’s Scientific Research Laboratory has performed a number of tests on vehicle body parts returned for corrosion related concerns. Testing has revealed that the aluminum corrosion was caused by iron particles working their way into the aluminum body part, prior to it being painted.” – TSB 04-25-1
The bumper on our example was cracked as well which meant while it was not the prettiest thing ever it was more affordable to acquire.
The engine was a 5.4L V8 that luckily was new enough not to suffer from the spark plug ejection issue that the earlier ones did. A previous owner had put an aftermarket air filter on it. The V8 engine was somewhat powerful but drank fuel at an amazing rate. It sort of oozed along and did not like to be rushed. I think around 12 MPG was the very best we ever got out of it under ideal conditions. The memory is getting a little foggy now but 9 MPG might have been the worst which is not that much of a spread but it was quite the change in consumption from the little Mazda.
The interior was in rather nice condition however. Seats were on the slippery side. Behind the wheel piloting this behemoth was predictably a little ponderous in tight quarters but as long as you did not rush it the Expedition gave a smooth ride. The cracked windshield is an Alberta default as we use a large amount of gravel on the roads in winter. Leads to less body rust but lots of cracked windows.
It came with the third row which came in useful for my wife in her job.
The big SUV was reasonably reliable during its stay with us. I had to replace the alternator and battery when one died and killed the other. The alternator was reasonably easy to replace with its top and center location (you can see the shiny new part under the intake pipe).
While the Ford was massive overkill in this regard we used it several times to tow our tent trailer.
After a while we sold the Expedition as the fuel consumption was shocking. To be fair we knew that going in. It proved to be a bit of a tough sell as resale values on the Ford were much lower than the GM equivalents. They have a mixed reliability record and tend to rust badly in the rockers under the running boards. Eventually I sold it a buyer who travelled from an hour away so I was painfully honest with him in regards to the flaking paint and a few small leaks. To avoid any disappointment I send him piles of photographs highlighting any flaws that contributed to the cheap listed price. When he took possession he seemed happy to have it but he must have had a bad case of buyer’s regret as I kept getting threatening texts and emails for a couple months after. He wanted me to reimburse him for a full paint job (which would have been more money than what I sold the whole SUV for). He even threatened to send his lawyer after me. Knowing he had no leg to stand on as it was all disclosed plus the vehicle was sold as is I called his bluff and I never heard from him again. Oh well. This one had filled a void for when needed but probably will not feature on my top vehicle list anytime soon. On to newer and only slightly more fuel efficient vehicles for the wife.
hmm 9mpg and $10+ per gallon is probably why I dont see any of these around here, Ive seen a Escalade locally oddly enough in pearl white but only one, feeding one of these is likely beyond the means of the people who would like to have one, Explorers suffered the same fate a friend bought or actually traded for one then discovered she couldnt get rid of it literally nobody would buy it at a reasonable price yet it went well had no damage and was a nice trim level,
Imperial or US gallons? Regardless, truly shocking fuel consumption indeed. Probably a significant factor in why I don’t see too many of these, even as company vehicles were the running costs can be written off.
If the paint is anything like the pearly white on my Forester I agree that it is a stunning colour that photos do not do justice to. Looking forward to the installment in this COAL series.
We pay per litre up to $2.25 locally x 4.5 so imperial, doesnt make them cheap to run by any measure.
US gallons. Pretty poor in either in either. Officially it is 16 mpg but we never got close.
I had one as a rental for a weekend back in the summer of 2006. It easily swallowed up our camping gear and that of a friend as well. I can attest to it being reasonably pleasant to drive, but I was glad we weren’t going too far out of town as it was definitely a thirsty beast. Okay for a long weekend, but nothing I would want in my driveway. Too big and too thirsty.
Large? kind of thirsty definitely, for a job I drive an 8 axle truck/trailer combination which empty tares around 17 tonnes like that is uses less fuel that the expedition, pump on 27 tonnes of product it still doesnt use a huge amount more that the expedition and grosses 44 tonnes ok its a hell of a lot bigger and turbo diesel 510hp and 1850ft lbs of torque but really Ford,
Parking is at a premium in my Toronto neighbourhood, and I wouldn’t want or need something like an Expedition. My father-in-law is a retired trucker, and there’s more than a few current and former truckers in my wife’s family. I’ve heard it all (and gone for a few trips).
In Northwest Indiana, these have become more scarce than their Chevy counterparts.
Not sure if they’re not as durable or the Chevy owners are just more willing to invest money in their old Tahoes and such. When new, these were everywhere.
Maybe the transmissions just go out and too expensive/impractical to fix.
2005 Fords are reputed to have serious trans issues, across the product line. My sources for this are talking to many technicians at several shops across the area, and looking up consumer complaints to the NHTSA website in 2009. (My ’05 Taurus needed a rebuild at 44,000 miles; luckily warranteed) 2005 is always mentioned specifically. I wonder if their was a secret recall, or should have been. Undersized lubrication holes or some such fiddle-faddle has been mentioned as a cause for some Tauruses and Explorers.
BTW, the rebuild of the trans on the Taurus has been flawless. 130,000 on it so far. So not a design issue, but an assembly one. Silly Ford…
The 3V 5.4 was junk, which from what I was able to find was probably due to insufficient oil passages. Cam phasers and tensioners were probably the most common and could run over $3K.
As for the buyer having regrets, naw that’s just a thing people do now. The Expedition could have been perfect and he would have made up some claim and demanded money back. Between people not transferring titles and crap like this I’m probably not going to do any more private sales. It’s just not worth it.
I remember seeing this and the Mazda on your Flickr when you had first got them, I always thought it’s a more logical pairing than two medium-sized vehicles.
Indeed – you can pair a commuter with a big family hauler rather than two comprised vehicles.
Wow, that fuel mileage is truly shocking. My old E-150 Club Wagon with the old Windsor 5.8 never got anywhere near that low – I don’t ever recall getting less than 12 in that one, even with its 3:55 axle. I wonder if it wasn’t something off in the way it was running.
I have seen some of those vehicles with the paint problems on aluminum panels. There is a Tahoe/Suburban I see regularly that has something like this happening on the tailgate – I had not realized they were using aluminum there on those.
I keep being intrigued by these but then they keep aging poorly in comparison with the GM competition.
This thread is interesting. My old 5.4 powered Ford E-150 generally gets around 16 mpg in mixed use driving. Best ever was 19.5 driving around Yellowstone National Park; the worst was 14 when pushing it into a very strong head wind.
The 4.6 in my F-150 is comparable, with less power.
TWELVE MPG?
I’ve fortunately never gotten below 13 in my 2002 Tahoe, and that’s with total city driving in extreme cold. My normal MPG’s around 15, sometimes 16. Which may not sound like a big difference to someone getting twice as much economy with a smaller ride, but with these SUVs each MPG makes a difference.
On the comment of mileage I only calculated it a couple times and with the fill up tank, write down mileage, fill tank, compare method. It might have been winter which leads to worse mileage as well. But it was carb’d big block type mileage regardless.
How much weight did they save on those aluminum panels? 5 pounds each maybe? Ford would have been smarter to go with a smaller V-8 to meet MPG requirements and not have to inflict paint issues due to their incompetence.
12 mpg is atrocious. That’s 70s era brougham territory. At least you didn’t spend serious money fixing it. That would have been my offering to the Cash For Cars program.
My aluminum bodied F-150 is over 500 pounds lighter than my last F-150. It adds up.
The 5.4 was designed more for torque than gas mileage. Even so, economy was typical for its class while being far more capable than ’70s broughams ever were. If you needed a family hauler, sure there were better choices. If you needed a truck that could also haul the family, the Expedition was a top choice.
Yes, they could have gone with a 4.6 but personal experience reveals there is no difference in fuel mileage between a 4.6 and a 5.4 in a tall, 5,500 pound light truck.
Lot of chatter about the MPG. According to what owners have recorded on Fuelly, this truck averaged 13.7, while the slightly smaller Tahoe averaged 13.9. So while it was not good by any means, it was within expectations for its class at the time. Additionally, the 5.4 offered quite a bit more torque than GM’s 5.3.
My dad’s ’04 Expedition Eddie Bauer has the 4.6L V8 and doesn’t feel even the least bit underpowered, especially when we end up behind a slow driver on 55-mph roads. This even happens with my ’11 Ranger (a 4-cylinder!) & DEFINITELY my ’05 Chevy Astro. You don’t need 200+ hp & 300+ lb-ft of torque for just regular commuting, unless you’re driving a fully loaded F-450 pulling a 15-ton tractor trailer–just an example. Anyway, the Expedition is driven mainly on weekends & special occasions (like my Astro) & still looks mostly brand new after 16 original-owner years (it was built in August ’03). Repairs have still been needed from time to time (HVAC, MAP/MAF sensors, etc.) but it has NEVER left us stranded anywhere. Both it AND the Astro are capable of getting 20 mpg or slightly better with a careful enough foot & driving more highway than city miles–I discovered this on my Edisto trip a month ago.