(first posted 7/15/2014) Bigger is better. While this phrase isn’t always true, there is no denying that the Ford Expedition was, and still is, one big vehicle. My reaction upon seeing an Expedition for the first time was pure awe. To my young four year-old eyes, it was the largest car I had ever seen! And even more intriguing, it was sitting in my own driveway. Where could this beast have possibly come from?
The Expedition I am referring to is the white 1997 Eddie Bauer that was owned my uncle. Still a year away from my first subscription to Automobile Magazine, and several years away from using the internet, back then I generally didn’t know about a new car until I saw it on the road. So the first time I ever saw an Expedition was when it pulled into my driveway and I watched my uncle and cousins climb down from it.
To me the Expedition was a giant, and rightfully so. At 78.6 inches wide, 76.4 inches tall, and 204.6 inches long, the Expedition dwarfed my mom’s Grand Cherokee in the driveway. Even its closest competitor, the Chevy Tahoe, was several inches smaller in every dimension. And although considerably longer, the Chevy Suburban was still shorter and narrower than the pudgier Expedition.
I’ll have to be honest when I say that I was slightly afraid of this behemoth, for which illuminated running boards were required to climb up into its cavernous confines. I denied my mom’s invitation to go with her and my uncle for ride around the block in it. It was not until my cousins’ talk of tinted windows so dark that people outside couldn’t see in, that I was lured into the wonders of the Expedition.
Upon embarking on my expedition up into this massive car, all my uncertainties of it were instantly quelled as I marveled over its commanding view, supple tan leather seats, and its third row seat–the feature that excited me most. Never before had I seen such a feature in an SUV, let alone one that was perched even higher than the first two rows, allowing me to feel like I was higher than any other car on the road.
As the months progressed after that first encounter, I made it my mission to snag a ride in the Expedition every possible chance. That next summer gave me many rides in the Expedition, as my whole family spent a great deal of our summers together on the Cape. Though the novelty wore off, I still never passed up an opportunity to ride in that gargantuan.
The opening scene of “Vegas Vacation”, where Clark Griswold recklessly drives his 1997 Expedition through his suburban neighborhood.
There’s a quality of added value when riding in an SUV of this size that other cars can’t offer. Some would call it an added sense of security. I prefer to call it egotism. While it is true that in most collisions between a full-size SUV and a mid-size sedan, one’s chances of safety are greater in the SUV, there’s no denying the sense of power one feels behind the wheel of one of these goliaths. This feeling of power alone played (and continues to play) a huge factor in why people choose to purchase a full-size body-on-frame SUV over a less macho crossover or minivan.
As I alluded to earlier, the Expedition was Ford’s response the Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon, and to some extent the 3-row Chevrolet/GMC Suburban. Although Ford’s Bronco had competed with the 2-door K5 Blazer and Jimmy for two decades, the introduction of the 4-door Tahoe and Yukon in 1995 left Ford with a gaping hole in its SUV lineup. Add that to the declining popularity of 2-door SUVs, and it was only natural for Ford to counterattack with the Expedition.
Heavily based on the all-new F-150 pickup, the Expedition shared a full 50 percent of its components with the F-150. With the exception of the grille, the two were identical from the windshield forward. Moving rearward, things differed to a greater degree. Shortened front doors allowed for wide rear doors for easy access to the second and third rows. Additionally the beltline was lowered on the Expedition for better visibility. Explorer-influenced styling was much rounder than GM’s SUVs, giving way to a slightly bulkier appearance.
When it arrived in showrooms in late 1996, the Expedition could be purchased in XLT or more luxurious Eddie Bauer trim, in either 2WD or All-Wheel Drive, and with a choice of two V8s each with their own 4-speed automatics. Standard power was the 4.6L SOHC Triton V8. Rated at a rather measly 215 horsepower and 290 lb·ft of torque, a 230 horsepower and 325 lb·ft of torque 5.4L Triton V8 was optional for those wanting a bit more pickup and towing ability. Output on both engines would be increased in 1999.
The aforementioned all-wheel drive models used a revised version of Ford’s BorgWarner-developed ControlTrac. Coupled with a 2-speed transfer case and offering four drive modes, this system was the first all-wheel drive system to not require a planetary or bevel geared center differential. Instead, it used an advanced software-controlled locking center multi-disc differential.
On the inside, the Expedition could seat up to nine passengers in all three of its rows. Its very swoopy dash and door panel design was also taken from the F-150. While it contained a lot of hard, monotone plastic by today’s standards, luxury was not the Expedition’s main mission. This area would be addressed with the Lincoln Navigator the following year. Still, the Expedition was an inviting place to be with its smooth ride, acres of space, and its commanding leather thrones.
The Expedition was an instant sales success, selling over 200,000 examples annually in its first several years, and outselling the Tahoe/Yukon duo combined. But alas, Ford was still rolling with the bigger is better mantra, and would not remain outsized by the larger Suburban. The Excursion was the solution to this, but that car is so big it needs its own CC to talk about.
The Expedition carried on with minor updates until 2003, when it was given its first (and to this date, most visually extensive) redesign. This was around the time when gas prices started to soar, and sales have steadily declined over the past decade.
As for my uncle’s Expedition, it only lasted about 3 years in his ownership before he traded it in for something a bit smaller. However, I should add that another uncle and aunt of mine owned a red Expedition Eddie Bauer that they purchased new in 1998. They kept theirs for over a decade until if finally bit the dust. While I am certainly less enamored with the Expedition today, the sight of one will always remind me of my rather religious experience with it.
In ’97 a coworker swapped off his 351 powered Ford conversion van for one of these with a 5.4 and 4 wheel drive. He also had 5 kids and a camper trailer.
He hated the Expedition. He said it was too small , could not pull like the 351, and used half again as much fuel.
Another coworker still has a ’98 he bought new with a 4.6. He said its the second best vehicle he’s ever had and he has pulled many heavy loads with it.
In all these were a very good answer to the Tahoe.
I had a coworker with a ’98 Expedition 2WD he had purchased to pull a 30′ slideout RV, After a couple of trips to New Mexico and Arizona he had the same complaints about the stock 5.4’s pulling ability and fuel economy. That problem was solved with a Kenne Bell supercharger.
Of course, when not pulling a trailer that Expedition was truly the ultimate sleeper. Soon after he had the blower installed he came over to my house to show it off. I was handed the keys and he had me go to an empty street in the back of my subdivision. He told me to get it up to 5 mph and then floor it. In the time it took to look up at the speedometer we were already up to 75 mph. (in a 20 mph zone!)
The blown Expedition was the perfect companion to his wife’s car, a bright red 5-speed ’93 SHO.
One doesn’t want to be seen as a rude person, but frankly I have always seen these giant SUV’s (although less gross than the Hummer) just TOO much for suburban roads.. too B I G ..TOO cumbersome ..too fuel hungry and too polluting ..the only saving grace being that when they did the infamous ‘roll-over’ the inhabitants within probably were saved by the surrounding crushable masses of steel??one hopes.. perhaps a forestry CEO should have one for traversing deep grizzly bear country or whatever! Yes, that would be okay..
I worked as a porter for a massive dealership before I went to college in 2001, and on the day I spent working for the BMW branch, they had me go get them all lunch from Arby’s. This was the vehicle they provided for this task. It did not leave a good impression on me. I was used to my tiny Hyundai Accent sedan, and captaining this behemoth was more like work than driving. It made my pathetic commuter special feel like a go cart in a good way. I never really had a good impression of these things, but I do understand that a lot of people did use them for more than just the school run in the morning. Unfortunately, those school runners gave these suburban queens the bad image I still associate them with.
Mom had one when I was growing up, with leather seats and the 5.4. It was never used to tow anything or haul very much, but it was a nice highway cruiser if you ignored the gas mileage. The body roll was also a bit excessive, or maybe it just feels that way when you’re up higher.
It’s worth noting that the F-150 chassis these seem to have been partially based on really whiffed the crash tests. I’m not so sure I’d want to be in one of these in a collision, even with a compact car. And let’s not forget the rollovers…
Oh, and always buckle up! ( http://i.imgur.com/dRXPc.gif ) I know your cousin’s friend’s bartender’s stepbrother was thrown from the wreck and he lived when all of the Sudafed tablets caught fire, but most people don’t fare so well.
Expeditions were much less prone to rollover than Explorers, even though most of the early ones came from the factory with the same defective Firestone Wilderness A/Ts (albeit a larger size) as the Explorer.
Speaking of which, I can vouch for Ford’s blaming Firestone for the rollover accidents. In 1999 my ex and I bought a ’96 Grand Cherokee from a Ford dealer. The dealer had installed a brand new set of Wilderness A/Ts (which IIRC were the same size as the notorious Explorer tires) as part of the detailing/reconditioning process. After about a year and a half we took it in for routine maintenance which included a balance and rotation. Later that day we got a call from the shop with the news that one of the Firestones (with only 15K on them) had disintegrated on the spin balancing machine. They threw on a stray Dunlop they had lying around (at no charge) and we had a new set of Michelins put on the next day.
Was Firestone sourcing those tires from China?
They were made in Decatur, Illinois at a plant (closed in 2001) known for questionable manufacturing processes not used at other Bridgestone/Firestone plants. There was also a history of labor problems.
Decatur was also the source of the Firestone 500s that were recalled in the late 1970s.
My family garage was a Firestone dealer. The product from Decatur had many more defects that any other plant in the system. That said, the problems with tires on Ford SUV’s were more to do with Ford specing them in the first place and then putting an absurd inflation pressure as standard.
The Wheelbase on the Explorer was too narrow and the COG was too high, the XJ Cherokee was ~4″ wider and not nearly as tippy.
I did not realize that these outsold the Tahoe/Yukon. However factor in Suburbans and Ford was still trailing in big SUVs.
Personally, I thought that GM sized theirs perfectly while Ford missed. Of course this from a former Club Wagon owner. I never liked the exaggerated height of these, and considered them way too small for a decent 3 row family hauler. Really, this was too small, the Excursion was too big but the Suburban was just right.
In my area these are plentiful and cheap on the List of Craig. I don’t think they have aged as well as Suburbans and Tahoes which seem to command much more money.
Thousands of SUVs from the SUV boom can now be had on CL for a fraction of their original worth, mostly because a more modern crossover does most of the same work for a gas bill at least slightly lower. In fact, if you don’t care about gas mileage, an older SUV will be the most vehicle for your money. Not the most efficient, or fastest, but the largest sheer amount of steel in comparison to the cash paid for it.
I recall having seen a Gannett “lifestyle” puff piece some years ago on families buying new small cars and being offered so little in trade for their gargantu-SUVs that it made sense to keep it, retired from daily-driver duty, for occasional long trips or big hauls.
Must have been a while back, trucks right now have outstanding resale value.
I had a 2000 Eddie Bauer, it was a nice SUV, but last year I got a Yukon XL that I like better than the Ford, I just hauled enough wood to build a 48ft privacy fence w/ room to spare, and Im glad I bought it since I happened to be driving thru the January Atlanta I-75 ice storm while moving to Florida.
The 90’s Tahoe/Yukon looks way better than 90’s Expedition and is better proportioned, IMO.
Once I had the opportunity to drive a ’97 Tahoe and can fully agree with “the sense of power one feels behind the wheel of one of these goliaths”, especially for a European guy! Having never even sat inside an Expedition, I wonder if this sense is even stronger in the Ford which is even bigger than the GM offering?
Looking at the photos, I would say the Expedition’s dashboard (and interior in general) looks somewhat more modern and slightly prettier than in Tahoe.
Having grown up behind the wheel (and in the back seat) of a ’74 F-250, ’79 F-250, and ’75 F-250 SuperCab, and learning to drive in a ’98 F-250 light-duty, I can’t say an Expedition would ever feel big to me, being about the same length as a RCSB F-150 and just as wide.
Now an Excursion–that’d be big. It may be about the same size as our regular cab ’08 F-350, but having all that length as interior space rather than bed space makes it feel absolutely cavernous.
Also, I don’t know if my experience is in any way unique, but I can’t recall ever really riding in one of these “behemoths” during the Epoch of SUVs, since it was also the Epoch of Minivans, of which we had plenty, and also maybe because living in (semi-) rural MN, we’re all somewhere between 5-15 years behind the times. Now there’s plenty of BOF SUVs roaming the highways, but in 2000? Still a lot of Oldsmobiles, Buicks, and even a few K-cars.
I guess an Excursion would have given you nightmares…
My BIL had one of these. I got to change the plugs on it once- a job I will never do again. There was so much crap down in the plug holes the socket wouldn’t seat on the plugs.
Yes, the beauty of the 4.6/5.4 plug change. You are so correct on their collecting debris.
From changing the plugs on my 5.4 van, my 4.6 pickup, and my former Crown Vic and T-Bird both having a 4.6, I have discovered a can of compressed air works wonders for cleaning out the crud. An air compressor would be the cat’s meow.
I don’t even dare replace the plugs myself on my F-150 5.4. Really irks me to pay somebody to do it, but the risk of breaking them off and stranding myself is too great. I mean they had the thread problem on the 2V and when they fixed that on the 3V they created a new problem with breaking them off. Horrible engineering. Been a solid truck though, so I guess I can’t complain too loudly.
Agreed on the ones having the plug issues. I’ve either been lucky or uncharacteristically wise in having avoided those that fall into that category. I’ve also avoided the plugs being welded to the intake after 100k. That is one of the few reasons I’m glad my pickup has a 4.6 as the ’07’s with that engine weren’t as prone to the plug issue.
“Note to self – avoid V-8 Fords unless it’s a 302 or 351”
In my company shop, the guys blow out the spark plug hole and then vacuum it for good measure. We lost an engine due to debris about three years ago.
As Phil says, the newer ones are a whole lot better. Lots of WD40 and patience work best.
That’s why they make blow guns with extended metal tips (wear your safety goggles)!
Two questions:
1. Why did Ford wait so long to compete with the Suburban? Setting aside the hunting/fishing/lumberjacking early versions, Chevrolet was addressing this big family vehicle market since 1973.
2. Why did GM wait so long (1987) to make an extended cab pickup?
1. In 1973, the family hauler was 9 times out of 10 a car-based wagon, not a truck-based one. It may have been RWD and had woodgrain paneling, but every Suburban before at least 1992 had a decidedly trucklike ride. And I don’t mean “trucklike” in the same vein as the ’97 and later Fords, that is, “firm, but composed,” I mean, “don’t go any faster than 40 down a gravel road because you might hurt yourself.” Not so much lumberjacking, but still a heck of a lot of hunting and fishing was what was in store for a Suburban in 1973.
2. Not sure how this is exactly relevant to the Expedition, but okay: First, GM did make an extended cab before ’88 (not ’87): the S-10/S-15 had it in 1983. Extended cabs on full-size trucks may have been introduced in ’73/’74, but they didn’t become nearly as popular as the compact versions (which were pretty much guaranteed to sell from the first day they came out in the mid-80’s) until the late 80’s or even early 90’s. GM simply didn’t see the cost of retooling their plant for extended cabs as paying off until the new GMT400 models came out. And they made up for being the last ones to the party by having by far the largest of the Big Three extended cabs. In fact, a new ’14 ext cab has marginally more space than an ’88–because no expansion of cabs was necessary compared to Ford and Dodge/Ram.
A friend manages fleet vehicles for the Los Angeles affiliate of a national television network. Expeditions are used by the news crews to get reporters to the scene for taped features. The fleet manager tells me these Expeditions are used 24/7, and log about 60k miles per year. They are kept three years. They are constantly abused, but hold up very well. Not a single engine failure, but transmissions typically head south at around 110k miles.
I just bought an Expedition this spring. An early 97 with the 4WD and 5.4. Bought it as a replacement for a 94 Cadillac Seville with the Northstar. And i can’t see why people call it a behemoth. I’m 6’4″ and to me its seems like a perfectly proportioned car. I can drive it with a hat, i can take my jacket off while sitting in it. Both the rear lift gate and lift glass raise higher than my head and if somebody parks really close next to me i can get into the car without cramp-inducing acrobatics.
Its is almost the same length as the Seville, slightly wider but way easier to park. I also don’t have to worry about lousy roads here in Eastern Europe. The GMT400 Suburban I also considered and test drove is much more of a behemoth than Expedition. Despite the 2.5 metric ton curb weight the Expy still drives and brakes like a passenger car. No learning curve at all from switching over from the 1.7 ton Seville. Suburban however felt like a truck. I could not get the braking right while driving it despite it being only slightly heavier than the Expedition.
Even the fuel economy is reasonable on the 97-98 models. Local guy with the 4×4 5.4 EB averaged 24 hwy mpg @55-60 with the car full of travel gear and a family.
Congratulations, you’ve discovered why full-size trucks are replacements for the Brougham yachts of yesteryear, and why full-size SUVs are the wagons: after putting in modern safety equipment, there’s still room to move around.
I always thought these were the “right” size for a 3-row BOF SUV. Tahoes didn’t have enough space behind the seats. Suburbans were on the large side. All three have their place though and the variety was nice. The IRS in the remodel was also superior to GM’s suspensions.
I think a big reason for their declining popularity is not efficiency, it’s retail price. These things start at $45K today and a loaded one runs over $60K. That’s just too much for what it is IMO. You can get a crew cab pickup or a Traverse for $10-15K less. Unless you need that max towing and a third row, they don’t make much sense anymore.
My wife recently acquired one of these in a 2004 5.4L flavor. That sheer size and total lack of fuel economy take some adjustment considering are other vehicles are 1.5L powered – Mazda 2 and Triumph Spitfire.
It’s 1997. You can’t get a [insert your favorite large, comfortable rwd wagon] anymore, because they’re “inefficient.” Pay no mind to the 200,000 roly-poly Canyoneros we’ve provided to 190,000 people who will never haul anything bigger than a couple cases of Duff Light.
Uh oh…I think I’m turning into Syke… 🙂
“It’s 1997. You can’t get a [insert your favorite large, comfortable rwd wagon] anymore, because they’re “inefficient.” ”
– yes, it seems funny to call big wagons inefficient. If I understand correctly, the government imposed ever increasing financial penalties for gas guzzling cars but trucks and SUVs were exempt so they were relatively cheaper…
Over here in Europe, it gets even better – in most EU countries, you have to pay yearly tax if you want to have your car registered so that you can legally drive it. The amount depends (at least in my country) on both the horsepower and displacement of the engine – the logic behind it being that large powerful engines are ‘luxury’. This applies to any car, even to a 20+ year old car – it can happen that yearly tax for a 90s Grand Cherokee can be more than half the vehicle’s worth -apparently, owning a 20 year old car is a luxury….
Here’s a perfectly capable 1997 Taurus wagon. 20 mpg combined. Seats up to 8 people, 38 cubic feet cargo space.
I just realized why they made the third-generation Taurus/Sable so hideously ugly. It was on purpose, to push car buyers up into these obscenely profitable cushy trucks!
Let’s see the Taurus pull a 30′ slideout. Better yet, let’s see a Leaf or a (Toyota product we can’t mention) pull a 30′ slideout. Or for that matter haul around an LDS or traditional Catholic family.
The hate for large SUVs is just as nuts as the hate for EVs and hybrids. There’s a place for both.
No hate, just the right tool for the right job, Mark. Naturally the Expeditions and Suburbans are useful for the biggest families. (Although my wife came from a 9-person family who did fine with station wagons.) A big truck is the only way to tow a big RV.
My point is, a tiny fraction of Expeditions and the like were bought by 8-person families and/or owners of 30′ RVs.
+1. Mike’s reply sums up my thoughts on this as well. I’d only add that many of the drivers who “need” Expedition-sized vehicles to get to the mall are barely qualified to drive cars, let alone trucks. Are many drivers of normal passenger cars also clueless? Yes, of course, but giant vehicles amplify their impact, literally.
But the Expedition is a station wagon and it’s ilk are the only big station wagons left.
Nope, not a wagon, not anything close. An Expedition is an F-150 truck with an SUV body. A station wagon is car with an extended sedan body. Expeditions are a thousand pounds heavier and over a foot taller than the last big RWD Caprice/Roadmaster wagons.
Experience the modern American road in a sports car, and these things become obvious.
It is absolutely without a doubt a wagon, yes it is on a truck chassis but is is still a wagon, even if everyone insists on calling in a SUV nowadays. Are real SUV doesn’t have 4drs and isn’t full of leather, power this and power that. If the last of the full size car based wagons had 4wd and met today’s standards they would be just as heavy and just as tall.
Take a look at my Travelall, many today would call it a SUV since it is on a truck chassis but compare it to the car based station wagons of the day and you’ll find that it is smaller and lighter than those competitors despite the fact that it shares components with a pickup. In it’s day it was extensively advertized and called a wagon by IH while the Scout was their entry into the SUV market.
“Canyonerooooooooooo……”
They aren’t just for the biggest families. They also haul a lot more. The Expedition has about 60 cubic feet of space behind the second seat. The Taurus only tows 1400 pounds. Those are pretty large differences you can’t just brush aside.
Obviously they are aimed at different markets. The Expedition did its job well and was exactly what a lot of active families were looking for. Did everybody who bought one really need all the capability? Of course not, but then again, the same can be said about almost any car. If you are driving a car, you are living a lifestyle that has a negative impact on mother earth. As mentioned below, a car enthusiast website is not the place to get on a soapbox about making efficient choices.
I did the economy thing for many years. Now the only reason I would get rid of my pickup would be if gas got outrageously high. It’s simply too roomy, comfortable, and useful to give up. Favorite vehicle I’ve ever owned, hands down. New cars with their gunslit windows and ass-on-the-floor seats do not impress me.
I like your comment there about the unmentionable car, I saw that thread after the comments were closed. It really irked me that it got taken down considering some of the other much more blatant mockery and hatred posted here, there is certainly a double-standard. But it’s Paul’s site, not mine, I suppose that is his right.
Sorry, had to get that off my chest, it’s been bugging me.
Instead of using my Leaf to pull a 30′ slideout, I would use the Leaf to drive to a five star hotel/resort and invest the money I saved in something that appreciates. That makes a lot more sense. The fact is very, very, few people actually NEED these huge boy-toys, making both the truck and trailer absurd to begin with.
I would never try to make the argument that anyone “doesn’t need” to buy a truck like this exclusively for driving to the mall/Jazzercize/yoga/office park, because that is totally against my firmly held and absolute views on personal freedom.
Likewise, if someone moved in next door to me and held klan rallies, blasted Billy Ray Cyrus albums and barbequed really foul smelling oxtail in their backyard every night, I wouldn’t begrudge them their right to act that way – but I’d really prefer that they fucking didn’t!!
That’s right. In the name of “freedom,” we need to put up with all kinds of anti-social behaviour. When I have bad neighbours, it’s my duty to tolerate it or move.
There’s a big difference between driving an Expedition and holding a Klan rally, and owning one hardly constitutes anti-social behavior.
Yikes, I guess that didn’t come across too well. I didn’t mean that driving a huge SUV is anti-social, I just meant I think it’s obnoxious. And yeah, unless somebody doing all that annoying shit was breaking a law (although I’ll admit they probably would be in the scenario given, haha – maybe that was too extreme) it would be my duty to tolerate it or move.
In other words, yeah I totally agree that no one NEEDS a “car” as ridiculous as this, and I hate that they sell millions of them, but it’s not my place to tell the unwashed masses what they do or don’t need to drive. All I can do is quietly look down my nose at them and hope they’ll eventually come to their senses.
One problem with these Taurii wagons, Mike, is that they are ruled out if you have 3 or more young kids. An air bag takes the front seat out of consideration, and the car is not wide enough to handle 3 kids in car seats or booster seats in the back. Sure, there is the way, way back, but what modern mom wants to strap in a little kid back there so far away? My gripe with SUVs was that if you really, really wanted a big, roomy family vehicle in the 90s, a Ford or Chevy or Dodge passenger van was a LOT more room for a lot less money. As long as you could sacrifice 4WD (which almost everyone can) it was a much better choice. But big SUVs were cool, never mind that you paid an awful lot of money for what you were really getting in size.
I’m amazed and discouraged that kids are banned from the front seat nowadays. Is it actually illegal or is it just uber-parenting? The air bag is sensitive to how much weight’s in that seat, isn’t it?
I’d like to know what’s the cost to a child’s mental and visual development getting shut up in the back like that. I have vivid memories of the wide wonderful world behind a mid-century windshield. And Dad or Mom working all those mysterious controls. Is a little more safety worth losing all that experience?
Agreed – it was a major score over the siblings to be first to call the front seat! Of course, we used to lounge on the package shelf over the back seat, too. 🙂
Not sure about more modern ones, but when I was in car-seat years in the 90s, everyone said never, never put a child safety seat in a seat with an airbag. Everything we had was either 1 or no airbags up until it no longer mattered, just by accident. Perhaps the newer versions are different.
The last car I had that could accommodate 3 car-seats across in the back was my 68 Newport. The 84 Olds 98 that replaced it could not handle that task, and was a 4 passenger vehicle only for our family. Going from 2 little kids to 3 is a major, major change in the vehicles a person can consider. Funny, though, when they got much bigger, we could get all five of us in a Honda Fit.
Yes many current passenger side airbags do have smart deployment that is dependent on the weight of the passenger but that is a newer development.
I have many memories of riding in the front when I was very young often sitting on the folded down center armrest to get a better view of the road. I also have memories of my aunt sticking her arm out in front of the kid who was sitting in the front seat to “protect” them if she was slamming on her brakes for what ever reason. I do have to give her credit for her reaction time but of course if it was an actual collision she never would have done anything to stop the un-belted kid from hitting the dash.
Let’s see that Expedition take a corner at speed!
I own a 2001 Audi A6 wagon. The handling is the difference- I can load it with way too much stuff, and not have to take the onramps at 25. It handles like a car, because it basically is one.
I do have an F150 for the big loads. It’s a lot larger and can haul more, but the A6 wagon holds most anything I can throw at it in day-to-day life.
My ’04 F-150 corners comfortably, well beyond legal limits. It’s not an issue at all. Easily out-handles the Panther and B-body wagons from my youth. A new F-150 has comparable handling and braking to many cars on the market today, which I pointed out on an article a while ago. Better than a luxury sport wagon? Nope. But if you Audi could haul all you needed, you wouldn’t have a pickup.
Sure, we’ll take the Expedition cornering if you take the Audi down a washed-out gravel “road” like most of ours have been during this Summer From Hell (look up “southwest MN flooding” for some good pictures). Different cars for different uses.
My older brother had one of these. They’re nice vehicles, but they’re way more than anyone in their right mind truly needs to have.
RV/boat owners who don’t want a pickup? Large families? Are they not entitled to a vehicle that suits their needs?
I agree. If it’s something you need, then go for it. If I could afford it, I’d buy one with a Power Stroke diesel engine. I was just saying that it’s a little too much bling and fluff for a utility vehicle to have. 🙂
I love it when people start talking about “needs” at a car fan site! I think many cars don’t make sense, but if someone has the scratch and they want that AMG wagon, they need to march themselves down to the MB dealer and buy it!
I agree. Sometimes you have to balance the two. Do I want this? Do I need this? Can I afford this? Does this vehicle have everything I need for what I intend to use it for? If the answer is yes to all of them, then go for it! 🙂
but if someone has the scratch and they want that AMG wagon, they need to march themselves down to the MB dealer and buy it!
Because we are on CC I read this as “they want that AMC wagon”.
“Some would call it an added sense of security. I prefer to call it egotism.”
Well said Brendan. These, like the first Explorer, were so well done it was hard not to like them. They replaced the minivan as the hip family cruiser but were so popular that before long they developed a “mommy wagon” stigma that the Chevy Tahoe, for some reason, was able to avoid.
My older brother and his wife had one like this. They’d use it for everything from skiing to soccer, to vacations, etc. While its fuel economy sucked, he made enough money that it really didn’t matter what fuel economy it got.
Many people did switch to a SUV to get out of a minivan and it’s mommy wagon stigma.
“Mommy wagon stigma”? I’ve never understood that. I’ve owned at least one minivan, and I never felt as though I was under any “stigma” as such. I actually enjoyed the minivan I drove.
It’s an image thing, some people care about that some don’t. I personally don’t. My friends do and when they ask for car advice it’s always the same from the guys — is this a chick car. Around here you always saw a lot of moms driving Expeditions. They seemed to be used more for kid hauling than say towing.
The difference with Tahoe is that many are used to tow things where I live. It is dad’s car to drive to work and a family car only on the weekends.
I am guessing the Tahoe was maybe better at towing and that somehow drove the usage/image? I don’t know we are not into SUVs.
My oldest brother Chip has a GMC Suburban. He uses it for everything. Skiing at Alpental, drive across the state of Washington, to Central Washington University, anything that requires something big to carry school gear and sports gear, or my niece and/or my nephew to singing or drum practice. Although its fuel economy sucked big time, it was as reliable as you’d expect an American SUV to be. He didn’t drive recklessly or suicidal. He was a safe driver.
When they came out the Expedition immediately became the SUV to have in the better neighborhoods around here. Everyone was trading in the last SUV you had to be seen in, the Grand Cherokee, which had replaced the original Explorer. All in all these were good trucks, I’ve seen many go well over 200K w/o needing any significant repairs. With the redesign Ford really should have done a more dramatic cosmetic change to reflect the substantial change underneath the sheet metal, the addition of the IRS.
Very true. During the height of the SUV boom I was living in Kingwood, TX, a generally upscale planned community north of Houston. If you had an Expedition, it was invariably a medium metallic blue or whatever shade of red or brown was closest to Aggie Maroon. For the Tahoe/Yukon/Suburban folks, it was Pewter Metallic – or, you guessed it, Aggie Maroon.
Always have kinda liked Expys, even though I’ve never even ridden in one. With regards the engine swap article a while back I would think that an Expy with a turbo Cummins 4BT would rock.
We still keep one around for ski trips, vacations and pulling trailers. Good highway mileage. Awful city mileage. With studded tires on it I’ve never driven a more secure winter vehicle . It’s weight helps it keep on track in slush when even the best car will get pulled around.. Road trips are like sitting in the living room. Woeful off road. Really durable and reliable..
Some folks we visited in Downey, California had one of these rigs that they used to tow their good-sized boat trailer and trimaran to Long Beach to launch it for days on the water. The garage was turned sideways on the very back of the 40-foot lot, and it was necessary to back the trailer with the Expedition down the narrow driveway beside the house, and turn the trailer 90 degrees to fit it into its spot in the garage. I’ve always thought that if I had a setup like that I’d buy a 4×4 quad of some sort to do that trailer maneuvering.
Or a Scout! When we lived in our old house I’d use the Scout to put our large travel trailer in and out of it’s normal parking spot in the back yard. I’d never bother hooking up the weight distributing springs so it looked pretty bad with it’s rear bottomed out but it was only going a few feet.
Would a quad tranny/clutch hold up to trailer-moving duty?
For moving trailers around, I’d suggest a vintage garden tractor (American-made), not a lawn tractor, with a manual transmission (they have granny gears so mucho torque multiplication). Unrestored beaters can be had for a few hundred on CL – you don’t need a mowing deck or any accessories, just one that runs and moves, with a 2″ ball mounted on the back. Heck, some of the older ones even used a car rear differential in them!
I lived in a house like that – sideways garage behind the house on a 40 foot wide lot. Fortunately, I never had to back anything bigger than a 64 Imperial into that spot. My hat is off to any dude who could do that with a boat trailer! Not a bad setup with either a Model A or a modern compact. Total PITA with any kind of real Murrcan car.
What I dislike about many modern “family” vehicles (trucks, SUVs, or minivans) is, they no longer account for the abuse interiors get from pets or messy kids, & use cloth or even leather upholstery instead of vinyl as before. The cargo area on Dad’s ’70 Country Squire was lined with sheet-steel, & the vinyl seats stood up to the dog & us kids. But now, posh trumps practical.
I even wish my Civic had vinyl armrests; even in the Sunbelt, I had no problem with them on my older cars. But cloth gets dirty & stays dirty.
GM still makes a commercial model Suburban or Tahoe, (rubber floor, vinyl seats etc) but they’re only available to fleet or government customers.
Thanks for the tip. Even floor mats & the dashboard (via the aftermarket) must be carpeted now.
I never had a cracked dash living in the Sunbelt; I use a sunshade while parked outside.
Obscene. Deadly Sins for Ford and the others to get hooked on the high (profits) of cushy trucks for the insecure. Nearly bankrupted Ford, did bankrupt the others.
Certainly these were very good trucks when called on to carry or tow heavy loads with lots of people onboard, as many commenters have said here. A few people do that enough for these rigs to make sense.
The vast majority bought them and drove them as behemoth cars, never carrying more than a Taurus wagon handles nicely, and never putting them to truck use. Advertising intentionally fed these cowboy fantasies to car buyers. Normal cars have had to get stronger, heavier and thicker-pillared in self-defense.
Besides, didn’t running boards on cars go out in the late 1940s?
(I’m donning my Nomex flame-proof suit now.)
But if it weren’t for the Expedition you wouldn’t have your Prius or at least it wouldn’t be where it is today. Ford sold the patents and data it had from its numerous experiments with Hybrid tech to Toyota just so they could fund development and tooling of the Expedition. Sure most of what they sold where the patent was still valid involved their late 80’s early 90’s work which was in serial PHEVs but none the less Toyota wanted the data to shorten their development time and Ford wanted the cash.
Wow, how ironic is that? So Toyota helped fund a Ford Deadly Sin, that’s shrewd.
Ford must have shared the rights, not sold them outright, since they did a fine job developing their own full hybrid drivetrain for the ’05 Escape.
Fascinating, thanks.
Well I don’t know that the Expedition is really a deadly sin. To me one of the defining attributes of a deadly sin is that the vehicle was so miserable that it made the people who bought them say never again will I buy a X brand vehicle. The other attribute is that the resulting loss of market share at least contributed to the fall of the automaker. Overall customers were quite happy with their Expeditions and Ford did not die, although they came close.
If you want to point to a vehicle that lead automakers to focus on truck based vehicles and deriving most of their profit from them you can lay that blame on the Explorer. It was the vehicle that upset all cars to become the best selling passenger vehicle in the US as well as the vehicle with the highest profit margin among Ford branded vehicles and one of the highest profit margins among mainstream vehicles.
However neither led to Ford abandoning the car market. During that era Ford invested heavily in bringing the Focus, fish faced Taurus, 500 and Fusion to the market. Yes they abandoned the subcompact market but they continued to invest in the rest of their cars significantly. Yes they missed the mark with fish face and the 500 but those cars did not fail because Ford failed to invest in them and let existing product rot on the vine.
The reality is the market spoke and Ford did the right thing by responding with the Expedition, Escape and Excursion. Would they have been better off if they let those profits slip away to other companies that were willing to supply that customer? What killed the market for the Expedition was $4/gal gas.
As far as the Escape goes from my understanding, from reading trade publications of the day, the agreement to transfer the patents and knowledge related to Hybrids was that Toyota agreed to license any developments that they made back to Ford. In the end it ended up being a licensing swap with Ford providing diesel tech to Toyota in exchange for the Hybrid tech. The Escape used the same basic architecture as the Prius and the eCVT used in the Escape (and first gen Fusion Hybrid) was actually made by Aisin, partially owned by Toyota, that also produced the eCVT for the Prius.
Ford’s work in the early 70’s was on post transmission motor/generators so the closest thing that made it to the market were the Hondas that had the MG between the engine and trans. Both allowed the electric assist, energy recapture and engine shut down but not a pure EV mode.
The closest thing to what Ford worked on in the late 80’s and early 90’s is the current Accord Hybrid plug in version, though I don’t believe that Ford had the clutch to link the engine directly to the wheels. It did however have the capability of a significant EV range and when the battery was depleted to run in a, as you would say, “full” hybrid mode.
Eric – fair point, but what about the Crown Vic?
The 500 was originally going to replace the Crown Vic for the retail customers. The full size RWD, Bof car had been declared a dead segment in the 70’s, again in the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s so it isn’t surprising that they didn’t spend that much money on the Panthers. They did spend some money on it though.
1990-1992 of course had significant changes to sheet metal, chassis and engine, 1998 brought a new rear suspension more frame tweaks and 2003 brought an all new hydro-formed frame (actually 4 frames with the 4 different wheel bases), front suspension, steering and a new axle housing and relocated rear shocks. They also brought out long wheel base versions of both the Crown Vic and Town Car which required a fair number of additional parts beyond that longer frame.
On the other hand it was a cash cow in a class of one so I’m sort of surprised they spent as much money on it as they did.
The fact is the car ran from 1992 til the end with essentially an unchanged body (the 1998 change to the 1992 Mercury body can’t be called new), so really introducing a complete new frame with the old body and its relatively poor passenger space was a Deadly Sin for the platform. Wikipedia shows the sales of both the CV and MGM dropped off after 2002, which were then around the 200,000 per year mark.
I agree the BOF was archaic, and presumably Ford must have been having one of its indecisive moments to not bring the 500 to market earlier than 2004, also manifested in the bet-each-way of keeping the old car in production alongside the new fwd car – fragmenting the market meant both were less likely to succeed. A rwd unibody car as ‘revolutionary’ (translation: well-executed) as the original Taurus was what they should have bitten the bullet and done.
From the lengthy platform lives of Ford cars in this era, the latter than ideal introduction of the Fusion and Five Hundred, even things like reverting back to a 3.0-litre only engine size for the 1996 Taurus and carrying that through to the Five Hundred, Ford certainly made a few poor choices during this time.
I agree. I prefer the smaller Explorer any day than this.
Expedition big? Not really, a Crown Vic is 212 by 78.1, the Expedition sits so high that it makes it look bigger than it is. At 252 x 80 this Fleetwood 75 chuckles at all these so called “tough and big” suvs.
Beats a Prius.
Oh boy, here we go.
Have you seen the new one? Does it all.
As if the Prius isn’t ugly enough as it is, someone made it even uglier still with monster wheels? What’ll they think of next?
Now THATS pretty cool!
Bring on the donked Tesla!
Here lies the vehicle that first aligned my automotive tastes with my Dad’s Virgo-Style frugality.
Although a staunch GM family, when the Bulky SUVs started filtering into our extended family he’d snap at how wasteful they were if you didn’t have 5 kids and lived on a Farm. A minivan or a station wagon was as much as people needed, and then he’d sing “Canyonerooooooooooo……” from that Classic Simpson’s episode.
The Expedition exemplifies the kind of ridiculous insecurity of the American Car buyer that prizes bulk and fashionable presentation over substance or actual need. To me they’re the logical outgrowth of where Boomer and Gen X consumers went for vanity shopping after Personal Luxury Coupes died in the mid 80’s. Granted a decade passed between the death of those cars and the upsurge of these, but….
I know I’m totally selective about which American cars I give a pass in this regard and which I don’t. But The Expedition has aged so poorly, given that, well, the Toyota that dare not speak its name appeared shortly thereafter, and that’s been a more rational example of where automobiles were going, and why all the big 3, even non-bailout Ford, were so clueless about where to go when fashions run their course.
You’d think they’d learn after 100 years not to continually chase the latest fad at the expense of some core concept of what the public always comes back to: the Medium sized car.
It’s easy to blame the manufacturers….but when Expedition sales bring huge profits while Focus muddles along, optimism prevails, and lots of Expes get built to satisfy the huge demand.
I hated these at the time not because of their appetites but because I saw them as the inevitable replacements for the large sedans I had grown up loving and (in the case of GM) had just been discontinued or (in the case of the Town Car) had been shortened by 4-5 inches, relieved of their hood ornaments, and made somewhat more ugly by the ’98 redesign.
But now, in a land dominated by itty bitty recession cars and ugly sedans and CUVs, I look back with great nostalgia to the late 90s when we were all making bank off the market and an Excursion or Expedition was considered a normal family car. Hell, just seeing something with four doors AND real bumpers is becoming a treat at this point.
I too remember most of them being in medium blue. And as a big sedan driver who gets those same feelings, I’m sure I’d appreciate the feeling of bigness/power driving these as well; it does translate. If only the ride were as smooth as the ’75 Fleetwood above.
Looking forward to the CC on the Excursion when it’s found in the wild. The true symbol of late 90s optimism.
All things considered, I haven’t had a better extended highway cruiser (for >2 occupants). Total living room. True stretch-out space, hang-meat-in-the-third-row A/C, pack whatever you want and throw it in that cavernous cargo hold. Also, seven years and 64,000 miles without a problem (admittedly not a huge feat, but worthy of mention). These beasts aren’t typically my thing, but I’m obligated to give credit where it is due for our former 2000 Expedition’s service.
Oh man, how I hate these! Not for the reasons that you’ve heard for the infinity-ith time from from the bleeding heart environmentalist types.
My parents had one of these, which replaced an Explorer. Ive driven both and both come off as nothing more than the result of a fat, sweaty, nasty 3-way between a minivan, a late 70s station wagon, and a brougham. I get that there ARE family types who spawn out a bunch of kids AND want to do outdoorsy stuff, and I also get that a minivan is the kiss of death if you want to appear cool in any way. My dad has a thick streak of hopeless blue oval fanboy in him, which makes it all the more infuriating whenever I had to drive or even ride in theirs.
Unlike some, I have a frame of reference: I learned to drive on not one, but two mid 80s fullsize Broncos. Now, if a 351 powered ’85 Bronco could be personified as Harrison Ford in his Indy Jones getup, then the Expedition is Michael Moore wearing a cheap cowboy hat. The Bronco fit a family of 5 just fine, even on our yearly 800-1000 mile runs from TN to FL, AL, and NJ. It looked cool, and was competent at anything you threw at it. Wanna go offroad? No problem, lock the hubs, and shift gears. Plenty of clearance at both ends, and a short enough wheelbase to whip around even in tight backwoods nastiness. For me at 16 years old, it would’ve been the envy of all my friends with the rear roof unbolted and some loud cherry bombs installed. The Expedition is comfy, there IS that. And sure it can tow a heavy load and its 4wd is great in all weather conditions. But a man’s truck it aint. Its a big blobby fatass that a certain demographic thinks is ‘macho’ because they equate sheer size with toughness. Never mind that its about as offroad capable as Clark Griswold’s family trickster unless you dump a boatload of cash into it. Never mind that it can barely get out of its own way, even with the 5.4. And never mind that its a porked up, middle aged tub compared to when you look back to the Broncos that preceded it. Not unlike what happened to the Thunderbird and other broughams.
If you remember Ren and Stimpy, Ill quote Mr Horse: “No sir….I don’t like it.” Any V8 Grand Cherokee can run rings around one of these, on road or off if you MUST have a family friendly SUV. But if I were limited to a blue oval sports utility, Id rather buck like a bronco, than wallow like a sow in mud.
I once read that the Expedition/Navigator line produced the strongest per vehicle profit in Ford history. The piece mentioned that each Expedition earned $4000.00 for the factory (NOT dealer) while each Navigator earned more than $6000 for the factory.
–Eco-mentalists wish to dismiss this vehicle’s poularity as an American extravagance that manufacturers whould ignore if they were ethical—which is, of course, ridiculous.
That sounds way lower than what I remember reading.
I believe it may have been higher than that. My friend’s father used to work for Ford and he told me that the original Explorer had about $10K worth of profit in it, on average, $5k for Ford and $5k for the dealer. Compare that to the Escort which averaged about $1K of profit again split about 50/50. I would expect that Expedition expanded on the profit of the Explorer or at least matched it. The Navigator with its $10K premium over the Expedition but little increase in cost to manufacture was probably had a profit margin near twice that of the Expedition.
My wife and I go camping with a group of friends every August long weekend, and I always rent a full size car for the trip. Back in 2006 they gave me an Expedition, and while I’ll take (and have taken) an F-150 any time, I wasn’t impressed with this overgrown mutation. Vague steering, wallowy handling and a pig on gas…even though it had way more than enough room for my wife and I and our stuff, plus some of our friend’s gear as well. At least it was less than a two hour drive…but unless there was big hauling or towing to do there’s no way I’d want one of these for a daily driver. Last year they gave us a Mazda 5. It easily swallowed up all our stuff, drove and handled much better and got much better gas mileage.
I think that this is the ugliest F-Series design ever and the flabby, fat SUV body didn’t do it any favors. I hated the way the front tapered to the Ranger-like, characterless headlights with wraparound park lights and tiny grille. The interior is even worse with it’s messy, random intersect lines and Taurus-like ovals.
I’m not a Ford fan but later model Expe’s were far better looking.
I agree with you and MoparRocker74 on these. I kind of hate them now for that 90s bubble look. Like the Mercedes ML they look so dated now. I will admit I liked them new, and also the F150, but they were a victim of their own success. The facelifted one looks a lot better.
I drove an early Expedition once and while the refinement was excellent for a BOF truck there was something about the transmission, like it was working really hard to mask the engine’s lack of torque. If you told me these things went through transmissions I wouldn’t be surprised.
Almost opposite opinion here–I love pretty much everything about the “jellybean” F-Series except maybe the front end. With just a tiny bit more boxiness on the front end to offset the “aerodynamic” hood and grille, this design would have been perfect. And yes, the interior is a lot of hard plastic, but really, that’s a lot more practical on the farm or anywhere else it may get dirty–you know, that thing that a pickup truck is supposed to do.
The only thing that I really didn’t care for was that the headrest was part of the seat, so when you threw a towel over to act as an impromptu seat cover, it had to be an extra-large to drape over the headrest instead of being stuffed in the crack. Intersected lines–sorry, where?
Of course, I grew up in the back (and later front) seat of one, so I may be a little biased. More than once on a long trip I would fall asleep on the SuperCab bench to the tape recording of “The Best of Bill Cosby”…
Driving one of these isn’t all that bad on a long highway trip. I liked the view over the hood. However, once I got into a parking lot, all bets were off. That’s why I never park near one of these big boys.
Can’t you just hear the automatic gearshift? Thonk thonk thonk thonk!
If anyone is still reading the comments, I have a question:
if one were to buy today, in 2014, a used mid- or late-90s SUV and choosing between a Ford Expedition and Tahoe/Yukon, which one would you choose? Which is more reliable, more rugged but more comfortable for everyday driving, especially in the city (in Europe) and on the motorway?
Lastly, which one would be better suited for some (mild!) offroading? (I fully understand that probably neither is even in the same league as Land Rovers and other ‘real’ all-terrain vehicles)
Well as i said before i just bought one this spring and i live in Europe. Sort of North-Eastern Europe. And i bought an Expedition. I also looked at a 97 suburban. To me the choice felt like choosing between which was more rugged and reliable and which was better. Overall the Suburban/Tahoe would be more reliable (if discounting the stock transmission or IFS) but the Expedition would simply be a better car to drive (despite having less power, the spark plugs threading issue, the leaky exhaust manifolds and the fault-prone air suspension). The Suburban handled and braked like a truck, the Expedition like a car. Couldn’t even feel that the thing was 2000lbs heavier than a normal family car.
For serious off-roading and forest trails they’re both too big. Youtube is here your friend and shows what abuse these trucks can actually take with or without mods. But the Expedition can be built better for off road. its IFS diff can actually take a locker and not grenade like GM’s 1500 series iFS at any tire size. That alone was a big plus for me.
But the local American car enthusiasts swear by the Suburban and consider it the best car for light offroading and all around use, including city, potholes on gravel and pavement and occasional monday morning featuring 3 feet of snow. Because with regular maintenance and lubrication of the axles and the suspension it is virtually bulletproof. People import them from the states with 120-200k miles on them and then happily use the car as a secondary family car, maybe do an LPG conversion and put on another 120-200k miles.
I have been waiting for CC to do a post about the early Expeditions! I bought a well used 1997 a few years ago. I am 6’4″ and a normal car with the child seats just will not work. Of course my wife requires the bulkiest seats possible to protect the kids. Those seats and the government’s requirement that you use them until your kid is 35 is the bane of my automotive existence. Kept it a year and a half, no major problems, but age related nickel and dime stuff (used to be an old state trooper vehicle). Overall a good solid truck that showed that they were well constructed after the life it had lived and was still reliable (took the family on a number of long haul road trips). Sold it for more than I bought it for, but less than what I put in it. Purchaser got a great deal and they still have it (yes, I stalk it once every few months because I loved that truck). I bought a 2012 Expedition XLT EL, go big or go home. Now I don’t pull a trailer and I do not follow the Duggers’ idea of family planning, but I like the size and the ability to swallow just about anything. I guess I would be a poster boy for everyone who hates these things. But, if my wife buys a patio set at a yard sale (which she has), I just load it in and off we go. Lowes run, not a problem. The guy at Lowes was helping me load the ’97 with five new toilets and said that finally someone came with an SUV that can hold something (all fit without putting down the middle row seats). Moving, not a problem (for either one). It is amazing how much these things swallow. Going on vacation, wife packs like we are going on an actual expedition so this thing is great. My wife likes the new one because, well, it is new. I have to say that I like the ’97 because it was more utilitarian and truck like. I like simplicity because there are fewer things to break (nothing but low mileage goodness with the ’12). Have to say that for the size of these things, they have incredibly tight turning radii. Never feel that I can’t park either one in a crowded parking lot. But then again, I have experience driving large vans and box trucks. I like large vehicles (thinking of getting a Crown Victoria police interceptor to my wife’s dismay) because I am large and having kids entails having to transport large stuff (the aforementioned car seats, along with strollers, and bags galore). I have a mid size car for my wife and it just would not work. She wants a full size SUV now because of the cramped interior with the two car seats. CUVs are just cars that are raised up and don’t give me the necessary room between the back of my seat and the rear seat. Now, I have to say, the ’97 had more interior room than the 2012 even though the 2012 is a larger truck. Gas mileage on both is bad, but the ragged out ’97 got better city mileage than the ’12 does, but the ’12 gets better highway with the six speed automatic. I looked at the Tahoe/Yukon/Suburban (’12 is a CPO one year old truck when I bought it) and they were more expensive. Additionally, I liked that the Expedition had the fold flat third row so I would not have to remove it (Chevy has it now too, but I read that it really eats into the cargo room). I also bought the ’12 Expedition because the same truck has been built since ’03. I know a lot of people deride the Ford for the old chassis and body style, but I saw it as after nine years Ford must have worked out most of the bugs. So far I have been right. Both the ’97 and ’12 do fantastic in the winter. Would I buy a modern Caprice wagon or Country Squire, yes. But they would not have the 4×4 that I need. I wish they still made the full size sedan (love the ’94-’96 Impala). But they don’t, so this is what I have to work with if I want something that will fit me, the monster-size child seats, that will allow me put anything in the back if the family is in the vehicle too and that can get me to the top of the hill in the winter. The front wheel bias of even the AWD CUVs worries me (Odyssey transmission comes to mind). Running a car tranny under a CUV body with all its weight does not inspire confidence. I make sacrifices by owning these trucks. They are not curve carving vehicles, they suck gas and they are larger than your average garden shed. But I love them.
Problems with the ’97-’02 Expeditions. The spark plug issue that has already been discussed. Front ball joints, they ate them like crazy. Was told that the aftermarket ones were better because the OEM ones did not have a grease nipple that allowed them to be serviced. They rusted on the bottom of the doors and tailgate. Everyone I looked at had this problem. When I bought the ’97, I had the dealer replace the cruise control switch in the brake cylinder. There was a recall because the switch would not turn off when the car was turn off and had a tendency to ignite the brake fluid and cause the truck to spontaneously combust. Dealer told me that Ford was building a guy down the street a house because this happened to his F-150 and burned down his house. Replacement part had better insulation.
I admit I am not a truck guy, but these always had a certain appeal to me.
Back in 1999-2000, I worked at a small Ford dealer in northern Michigan, so I got to pilot quite a few of these. I will say that I found them to be surprisingly nimble around town. the ergonomics in them was very good, and short me didn’t have a problem getting comfortable behind the wheel.
Personally, I feel that each redesign took away from it’s looks, and today’s version is just way too blocky looking. Since 2003, the hoods and especially the lift gates rust way too fast.
The Excursion, in comparison felt way too much like the giant truck it was, though the early Limited models had great seats.
Today, despite their woes, if I was in the market for a large SUV, a King Ranch Expedition would be near the top of my list. If nothing else, they can be had for less than a comparable Tahoe. A few days ago I drove through a Chevy lot, and they had a number of new 2015 Tahoes sitting there, and the LTZ model stickered for $67000! Insanity!!!
I’m not a fan of big trucks and SUVs. It’s probably because I’ve never driven anything bigger than a 1977 Toyota (Hilux) pickup truck or a 92 4 Runner SUV.
On my local CL, it seems that old Expeditions are often quite cheap with rust and suspension issues, while Excursions still command a lot of money in comparisons. They seem to have been much more durable vehicles. Of course they should have been, based on the Super Duty and all.
Well once a month or so i check a list of a few dozen makes and models of used cars in the States and Excursions can be had for Expedition money too, but usually only with gasoline engines. Possibly because those come with either poor mileage (V10) or both poor mileage and poor performance (V8). They are though prime specimens for some awesome and relatively uncomplicated conversion. Even on the driveway if one has to.
My parents purchased a ’98 Eddie Bauer new. Never drove it and it now sits in my garage with 27,000 miles on it. I wonder if it’s worth keeping or not.
when did the public get all lux truckie?? I have never understood it- i mean the mind, the imagination, the impressions, the expectation, like public luv expectations, that all trucks are some Range Rover Bentley lux vehicle, must be dammit!
😉
I am the last generation who remember that the private truck was more like a fleet company truck than some Lexus QXGVT 47000 Extravaganza Limited. I remember when the F100 Explorer (no not suv, pickup) first came to be 3/4 like an LTD saloon; when the Cherokee chief morphed into the Wagoneer 360 Limited; when the Land cruiser which had been something between a CJ jeep and a Land rover military, became a Crown with air, tape, and leather.
I remember my shock when I first got in a Chevy truck to realize that it was not a C10 like a 64 GMC with a six and a lever for three gears, but now a Silverado with Caprice seats, air, power buttons for everything inside, and seemed like it had air ride suspension.
But that was not every truck or Cherokee, or what we call suv, truck wagon, pickup, crew cab, it was only a handful of the ordered ones for a select desire. Now, it’s every truck, every wagon, every minivan. I have never seen a Sienna that is not a limited, with cd changer, mp3 connect to speakers system, leather everything, plastic buttons working power everything, power doors open up, serves you coffee on a silver tray and gives back exact change.
And the willingness to buy, to pay, to pay more, mucho more.
what the heck happened? what is it with this expectation? I remember the Ford Bronco when it was like a CJ, it had a steering wheel, you could order power steering if you really needed, it had plaid cloth seats, no cd anywhere near it, no leathers, no 8 way power seats, no power reclining rear seat, no heaters in the seats, no moonroofs, certainly no Bentley or Navigator feel to it! imagine my surprise when I stepped into a 96 Explorer and found that this Eddie bauer lariat limited reminded me of my dad’s Range Rover which is like an all wheel drive Bentley.
what the heck happened, to trucks, and to Americans?
I have a real issue with people referring to a truck based SUV as a car. It’s not a car, or automobile, It’s a truck! I have an F150 long bed, definitely a truck. Also a four door ’97 Explorer, also a truck. I don’t have a problem with cross overs being called cars since they share their platform with them. Okay, old Man rant over. On your way out, Stay off my lawn!
Does the new Ranger has drivetrains with basically numbers that used to more than suffice for the Expedition?
Come back Brendan, I miss your writing!
What happened to Brendan? Seems like he just stopped posting new articles months ago.
I appreciate it and miss this community too! I assure you I am alive and well; 2020 has just been a an astronomical, emotional rollercoaster year of change, struggles, craziness… and that was before COVID even began. As of late, I have been pouring my passion for cars mostly into photography as with COVID, active car hunting has become a safe sport of refuge. If you’re on instagram, @car_spotting_ma is my car-dedicated channel.
I recall these coming into my body shop pretty regularly with corrosion issues on the tailgate.
Newer models seem to be priced lower than comparable Tahoes in the used market, maybe it’s the engine, maybe it’s something else.