Rob052067

Those are impressive MPG figures for a 4WD model, Ernest. Even good for a 2WD! :yup: I agree about the ride. In the test drives I've taken, the Expy's ride and handling is much better than my '04 Yukon's. One dealer had a course with various obstacles and such...it's no Porsche, but it really handle's well!

Thanks Baumbach. Looks like you've spent a lot of time on your Expy webpage and are really 'into' your vehicles. I'll check back often to see your latest details. I wonder if the discrepency in the MPG is a result of the 20" wheels? Anyone else see this issue? I hope it's not a common problem. The readout in my Yukon has always been dead-on accurate.

Thanks for the posts so far guys. Some pretty good sounding numbers on the 4WD models. I plan on getting a 2008 standard-length XLT 2WD w/3.31 with all-season tires next spring. I'm hoping to see some reports of better than 16 city and 20 hwy with a similar spec'd model. (I normally get 15-16 city and 20-21 hwy with my 2004 GMC Yukon 4.8L 2WD w/3.23 and all-season tires.) Keep the stats coming... Thanks!

Everyone who currently drives a 2007 or 2008 Expedition, please post your real world MPG figures: Model (XLT, EB, Limited or KR): Style (Standard or EL): Drivetrain (2WD or 4WD): Tires (All-Season or All-Terrain): Axle Ratio (3.31 or 3.73): Average City MPG: Average Hwy MPG: Average Overall MPG: Driver Personality (Light-Foot, Moderate or Lead-Foot): Thank you! :stats:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pretty much make it possible for mortgage banks/lenders to have money available to lend to borrowers for mortgages. The pooling of mortgage loans into securities for investors to buy into is a huge engine in our economy. A bank lends money for a mortgage to a customer; the bank sells the debt to an investor like Fannie or Freddie who securitizes it on the open market; the bank once again has money to lend to the next customer. Fannie's and Freddie's income is moderate relative to the size of the portfolios they manage. http://www.freddiemac.com/index.html http://www.fanniemae.com/index.jhtml The large banks like CitiGroup, BofA, JPMorganChase, etc, earn a significant portion of their income in Investment and Institutional business, rather than in the Retail (Consumer) business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_bank

Not quite... In Walmart's last fiscal year, ended 01/31/07, the company reported annual revenue (sales) of $344 Billion, and net income (profit) of $12 Billion. Walmart's latest Annual Report: http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/...761/2007_AR.pdf In Exxon-Mobil's last fiscal year, ended 12/31/06, the company reported annual revenue (sales) of $377.7 Billion, and net income (profit) of $39.5 Billion. Exxon-Mobil's latest Annual Report: http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corp...om_2006_SAR.pdf

That's a bummer. But, could be a good thing. There's no rebates on 08's right now. So, if you have to wait another couple of months for a new one to be built and delivered, you might save a little money. As for Gomer's comment about gettin a Toyota...Fuggheddaboutit!

That's strong MPG for 4WD at 75MPH! ^_^ Anyone else have 07/08 Expy MPG experiences? Please post! Thanks! :shades:

Lincoln and Cadillac have had 4/50 B2B warranties for several years (and Buick was also bumped up to 4/50 starting with the '06 MY). Most, if not all, of the luxury brands have longer warranties. Last year, when Ford bumped up the powertrain warranty to 5/60 for Ford & Mercury, they bumped up Lincoln's powertrain warranty to 6/70. Cadillac has the same 5/100 powertrain warranty as other GM brands. Both GM and Ford warranties are transferrable. Chrysler's new Lifetime powertrain warranty is only good for the original owner and is not transferrable. Here's a site you can go to to compare various warranties among all the auto brands: http://www.automotive.com/new-cars/warranty/

That's a apple vs orange question. A 10 yr old Expy is gonna be a lot cheaper than a 2 yr old Nav. Depends on your budget, your needs, the mileage and condition of the vehicles, etc. It's a decision only you can make.

Depreciation varies greatly by model, brand, miles driven, market conditions (demand), etc. The first year (or immediately after new purchase) sees the largest drop percentage wise. Those websites can show a history of yearly depreciation on whatever vehicle you search for.

You can get detailed price info on used vehicles (trade-in and retail values) at the two sites below: http://www.kbb.com/kbb/UsedCars/default.aspx http://www.edmunds.com/used/index.html The determination for what a 'good first SUV' is for you is dependent on what you want to use it for and what your needs are. Do you need to tow anything? How many people/How much cargo do you need to carry? What's your monthly budget for loan payments and fuel costs? An Expedition is a great vehicle if you need a great big SUV for whatever reason(s).

Not bad... 4WD or 2WD? Standard or EL?

Nice lookin ride! I'm tentatively planning on ordering an '08 XLT 2WD in that color in January. :shades: Re Mileage: Is yours 2WD or 4WD? Are you a light foot or lead foot when driving? How's MPG on highway trips?

That's not a scientific study and has a lot of mismatched comparisons (ie: Saturn Vue Hy and Ford Escape Hy versus Kia Rio and Nissan Versa). The guy that put that together didn't do a very good job of comparing apples to apples. Plus there's no listing of engine sizes or transmissions. For the most detailed apples to apples comparisons, go to the EPA's website to review the complete Fuel Economy Guides. (Note: The 2007 guide is complete, but the 2008 guide is still a work in progress). http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/feg2000.htm Here's a few apples to apples examples from the 2007 Guide (most Toyotas are not on the 2008 guide yet): Toyota Highlander Hybrid 2WD - Auto 3.3L V6 - 32 City / 27 Hwy Ford Escape Hybrid FWD - Auto 2.3L I4 - 36 City / 31 Hwy Toyota Highlander 4WD - Auto 3.3L V6 - 18 City / 24 Hwy Ford Escape 4WD - Auto 3.0L V6 - 19 City / 23 Hwy Chevrolet Malibu - Auto 2.2L I4 - 24 City / 34 Hwy Toyota Camry - Auto 2.4L I4 - 24 City / 33 Hwy Chevrolet Malibu - Auto 3.5L V6 - 22 City / 32 Hwy Toyota Camry - Auto 3.5L V6 - 22 City / 31 Hwy Ford Focus - Man. 2.0L I4 - 27 City / 37 Hwy Nissan Sentra - Man. 2.0L I4 - 28 City / 34 Hwy Ford F150 2WD - Auto 4.6 L V8 - 15 City / 20 Hwy Toyota Tundra 2WD - Auto 4.7L V8 - 15 City / 18 Hwy

What country are you from, Lincoln? I don't think there's any worry that the US won't still have a strong demand for imported oil for several years to come.

Why should the government 'force' automakers to increase fuel efficiency. This is a supply and demand, market driven economy. If gas taxes raise the price of gas high enough, consumers will demand more fuel efficient vehicles - large and small. Any company that fails to meet the demands of the consumers will fail. Raising the tax on gasoline should be gradual and not sudden, to give time for consumers and manufacturers to adjust to the new market realities. A gradual increase of 5-10 cents every three months (for say 10 years) would allow sufficient time for consumers to trade in old innefficient models for newer more effcient models, and also allow manufacturers time to adjust to the new demands for highly efficient vehicles and for vehicles powered by alternative bio fuels and for plug-in electric hyrids. Petroleum is not going to be around forever. It'll probably be around for the next century or so, but it will get more and more expensive due to growing world population and more difficult and more expensive extraction methods. If we gradually raise taxes on gasoline in order to gradually reduce demand over time, the country will be far more secure both economically and militarily in the future. The US imports more than half of the oil it consumes, and roughly half of those imports come from Middle East countries. Some with ties to terrorists. Some that have governments that are vulnerable to overthrow by Muslim fanatics, and some that are already run by Mulsim fanatics. That doesn't sound like a national security threat to you? Paying higher taxes on gasoline is expected to reduce demand. Reduced demand should lower the price of gasoline as less oil is needed and fewer refineries are running at full capacity. So, the net cost out of your pocket shouldn't change that much. Either the price of gas is going to go up because increased demand raises the prices paid for oil and for gasoline refining, or the price of gas is going to go up because taxes are increased. Either way, gas prices are going to go up. The days of cheap gas are over forever regardless. I think it would be better to keep our money in the U.S. to pay for infrastructure improvements than it would be to keep sending more and more to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria, etc. - and Russia and Venezuala for that matter.

The idea for substantially increasing the sales/use taxes on gasoline as a method to reduce oil consumption/demand and to strengthen national security has been floating around for some time - it's not something new that Mulally is pulling out of thin air. It is an idea that has support from many on all sides - liberals, moderates, and conservatives. The blog linked below lists a number of well know figures - economists, pundits, politicians, scientists, environmentalists, etc., who have endorsed the idea: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/rog...pigou-club.html In most cases, the plan for gas tax increases would not necessarily mean a significant overall tax increase, but rather a tax shift. A federal increase in taxes on gasoline would most likely be offset by decreases in income taxes. State increases in gas taxes, would likely be offset by decreases in income, sales, or property taxes. What gets me in some of the responses posted here is that some of you seem to be happier sending your money to the governments of the Middle Eastern oil supplying countries than you are in paying taxes to the government of your own country. Do you really mistrust your own government so much that you prefer to send your money to foreign governments where it may end up in terrorist hands? Is the 'common good' of the country of so little value compared to that of your own individual interests? :shrug: Fortunately, there has been some interesting and informative dialogue going on here. Some educated discussion and some good alternative ideas have been tossed around. And, of course, there's also been some thick headed ignorance, along with some pathetic name calling (you know who you are). For those offering positive ideas and constructive conversation, kudos to you! :beerchug: Here's some additional resources on the subject: BusinessWeek: Higher Gas Tax? Smart Move: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas..._3636_db013.htm Wall Street Journal: Raise the Gas Tax! http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/m...the_Gas_Tax.pdf New York Times: Raise the Gas Tax? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business...nyt&emc=rss Let's Speak About Energy (And a Gas Tax) Now: http://www.energybulletin.net/22144.html :cheerleader:

It's a fact: The market is demanding more efficient vehicles because gas prices have gone up. However, aren't the higher gas prices the same as a tax increase? But, instead of the extra money paid for gas going to the government to spend on infrastructure repairs/improvements and for technology research, etc., that extra money is going directly to the oil companies and to the foriegn oil producing countries - most of which don't much like us. Wouldn't it be better for higher gas prices to be the result of higher taxes where that money stays in the U.S. and is used to fund projects that the country needs for a better and safer future? Higher taxes on gas will eventually reduce demand, and as a result the prices of oil and gasoline will decline, which will in turn offset part or all of the increase in the overall price per gallon paid at the pump. One way or the other, higher gas prices will change driving habits; encourage demand for greater fuel efficiency in new vehicles and for more alternative fuels. If I'm going to pay more for gas, I for one would rather be paying more to Uncle Sam than be paying more to Middle Eastern nations and Big Oil companies.

I couldn't disagree more. The so-called 'wasteful pork barrel' spending by Congress is really such a miniscule blip on the radar of the Budget of the U.S. that it could be likened to a rounding error. First, most of those 'pork' projects are useful and necessary, and bringing money back to their home states and districts is part of what Congressmen are elected to do (and, sadly, some of that pork is often needed to gain votes on crucial bills - that's just politics). Second, the actual amount of wasted money on unnecessary projects is in the blown out of proportion by the media and amounts to a couple of billion dollars a year at the most. Repairing America's aging infrastructure will cost over a Trillion dollars over 10 years (ie: over $1,000 Billion!), and there's no way to pay for it without raising revenues (taxes). There's only a very small percentage of the US Budget that doesn't go toward Defense, Social Security, Medicare, and Interest Payments. The Federal Debt is nearly $9 Trillion dollars, and we sure don't need to pile on more debt to pay for infrastructure repairs. In Fiscal Year 2006 alone, the U. S. Government spent $406 Billion on Interest Payments on the National Debt. Compare that to spending for NASA at $15 Billion, Education at $61 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $56 Billion. Just think what that $406 billion dollars could have been better spent on had Congress not mortgaged the future with annual deficit spending. For decades, Republicans have pushed tax cuts on top of tax cuts while wrongly claiming that economic growth will increase revenues and eliminate deficits. That hasn't happened. There's been revenue increases, but that's to be expected with population increases. Unfortunately, spending has also increased as the demands on Defense, Social Security, and Medicare increased, and the ever growing national debt required larger and larger interest payments. Basically, the Republicans have been 'Borrow and Spenders'. At the same time, Democrats have been shamed and belittled as 'Tax and Spenders' for so long that they've been wary to push for needed tax increases to eliminate deficits, to pay down the debt, and to pay for much needed infrastructure repairs and improvements. There's been no real leadership in government on either side to get the job done for the good of the country in the long run. Everything is done for the here and now: to please supporters, so more campaign funds can be raised, so they can get re-elected... wash, rinse, repeat, ad-infinitum... :titanic:

No arguments here that Mulally is going to be proponent of policies that benefit Ford, or at least have the least negative impact on the company. And, as the CEO, there's nothing wrong with that. However, taxing different classes of vehicles at different rates is a bad idea, and really does nothing to encourage higher efficiency and lower fuel demand. People that need bigger vehicles for whatever reason are still going to buy them, regardless. Plus, just because someone drives a big gas guzzling vehicle doesn't necessarly mean they use more gas than someone else who drives a tiny gas sipper. For example, I live 4 miles from work and drive a Yukon that gets 16mpg around town, but I'm using far less gas than the Prius driver who lives 30 miles from work and gets 45mpg. How a person drives also affects how much gas they use. A lead-foot driver in a mid size car may get the same mileage as a light-foot foot in a full size truck. A higher tax on gas is the most fair and equitable solution. The more you use the more you pay - regardless of what you drive.

Gas taxes and Diesel Fuel taxes are different and don't have to be at the same rate. Since Diesel powered vehicles get better mileage and their production is being encouraged, I doubt that the tax on Diesel, or on E85 for that matter, would be as high as on gasoline (nor should it be). I fully agree that the US needs much higher gas taxes to encourage higher demand for more fuel efficient and alternative fuel powered vehicles and to lower demand for foriegn oil. I've long advocated a phased-in increase in gas taxes by an additional $2/gallon over 5 years or even $4/gallon over 10 years (that's only a 10-cent increase every 3 months for 5-10 years). The additional revenue can be used to repair and improve the country's infrastructure and to pay for research and development of new technologies. And, to ease the burden but still gain the benefits of lower gasoline demand, some of the increase can be be offset for low and middle income people by offering modest income tax credits.

No A/C in the plant?? Really? I actually shocked and appalled at hearing that. I know it's Michigan, but the summers up there are getting hotter and hotter every year. Maybe they should only run a night shift during the summer?? Or is it hot in there year-round, day or night?? Are there any policies for closing the plant down when it gets above a certain temp in there? I guess the workers are between a rock and hard place. The cost of adding A/C to that old plant would probably mean that Ford would close it down before spending the money on such a costly upgrade. I feel for those of you working there, but I have to share a little perspective from the 'good old days': My grandfather worked for Ford for 30 years at the Rouge from the mid 1930's to the mid 1960's (and my grandmother did too during WWII). I remember some of the stories from the early years (pre-union). He worked in the glass plant where they made windows and windshields. One of his jobs for several years was running a crane that rode above the molten glass. Talk about hot! Aside from the heat in there, sometimes he'd come home with holes in his clothes from the acids used in glass manufacturing processes. I wish I could remember more of his stories and better details. I do remember that he helped out a little with the union organizing and was one of the guys carrying the baseball bats for security, but that's another story.

Is there a problem with the A/C at the MTP? Is it broken or just insufficient? If there's a work condition problem, shouldn't the union or shop stewards be doing something about it?

Overall leg room is very good in the new Expy (and MUCH better than the new Tahoe or Yukon thanks to their awful center stack that sticks way out into right knee area of tall drivers). But, I don't like my right leg resting on the edge of the center console. It is better than in most of today's vehicles, but I much prefer the added space of bench seats without the console. More freedom of leg movement. The buckets are standard, but there is a zero-cost option for split bench with a column shift. It didn't appear on the 07 brochure, but it does appear in order guides, so it may have been a late arrival. The option does appear in the 08 brochure and on all the order guides. Just no pictures found anywhere and I've found no dealers who ever orderd one that way. The 08 Expy order guide estimates that 10% of XLT models will be ordered with the bench seats. Hopefully I'll find one to test before I place my order in January. Here's a post that contains the 08 order guide: http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...c=13631&hl=