New Expedition / Navigator

[fou_bleu]

Do you think Ford will bother with an all-new Expedition / Navigator? Especially considering the image of gas guzzler I'm sure they have (it'd be considered a 'yank tank' here in Aus.)

 

Also, what are their sales numbers like to how profitable they'd be?

 

If so, what would you like to see?

 

My thoughts:

 

Choice of EB 3.5 or Scorpion 6.7 - that's all! :D

 

Of course a new interior / exterior w/ MFT and all the rest...

[jpd80]

Expedition is built on a variation of the F150 platform and will eventually get new engines as they become available.

As of November, over 35,000 Expeditions have been sold, 25% more than 2009 and would expect the total for 2010

to be around 38,000. Prices atart at US$38,000 and go from there.

 

Expedition and Expedition EL are products that add incremental increase to F150 production,

a new Expedition and Navigator with 5.0, 6.2 and EB V6 would be a welcome improvement

over the current versions.with those improvements, I'd expect Expedition sales to continue

their resurgence, increasing hopefully back up to 45,000 to 50,000 for 2011.

Edited January 4, 2011 by jpd80

[Harley Lover]

Expedition is built on a variation of the F150 platform

Is that really correct? I thought the current chassis was somewhat bespoke, given its IRS and other mods.

Isn't the current rumor that the Expy and Navi will move back to a true F150 chassis in the next generation?

I agree with you jpd, they should be getting the new F150 engines. And I also agree that these products cry out for the diesel engine offerings in the Ford stable.

[jpd80]

Is that really correct? I thought the current chassis was somewhat bespoke, given its IRS and other mods.

Isn't the current rumor that the Expy and Navi will move back to a true F150 chassis in the next generation?

I agree with you jpd, they should be getting the new F150 engines. And I also agree that these products cry out for the diesel engine offerings in the Ford stable.

The Expedition's T1 platform is based on the F150 P2 platform but was

altered to allow IRS which reduced unsprung weight by about 110 lbs.

 

I've heard the rumors that F150 and Expedition will use more parts

but I think the commonality is already there and will be further exploited.

 

For mine Ford should turn the Expedition into a fuel efficient "sports car"

by putting the 6.7 V8 diesel in her, 800 lb ft under the foot...Mmmmm.

[akirby]

I think they're necessary because there is a market out there for these vehicles and new powertrains and some new sheetmetal should drive sales a little higher. I could see the Expy hitting 50K and the Nav hitting 20K. What makes this viable is the fact that it shares the F150 platform and other bits. There is no way you could support a totally unique platform any more.

[NLPRacing]

The Expedition's T1 platform is based on the F150 P2 platform but was

altered to allow IRS which reduced unsprung weight by about 110 lbs.

 

I've heard the rumors that F150 and Expedition will use more parts

but I think the commonality is already there and will be further exploited.

 

For mine Ford should turn the Expedition into a fuel efficient "sports car"

by putting the 6.7 V8 diesel in her, 800 lb ft under the foot...Mmmmm.

 

A 3.5EB and 4.4L Diesel would be more than adequate. The 5.4/6SP in our 07 EL has plenty of power, a 3.5EB in one would be fun.

 

I think they're necessary because there is a market out there for these vehicles and new powertrains and some new sheetmetal should drive sales a little higher. I could see the Expy hitting 50K and the Nav hitting 20K. What makes this viable is the fact that it shares the F150 platform and other bits. There is no way you could support a totally unique platform any more.

 

I would like to see the Expedition become an F150 wagon again, but it has to keep IRS. I wouldn't mind seeing IRS as an option on the next F150 SuperCrew. I was looking under my Expedition a couple weeks back when I changed the oil. That frame & suspension is very stout looking. I would love to see a new Econoline built on this frame.

 

Will the F150 & SuperDuty merge more (cabs, beds, etc.) in the future, or will they stay separate? If the merge, a regular length F150 based Expedition and a SuperDuty based EL would be nice, but only if they share the same body structure.

[theoldwizard]

As Mullay might say, "If we can make profit on it, why not ?"

[Sevensecondsuv]

AI would like to see the Expedition become an F150 wagon again, but it has to keep IRS.

 

Why? Here are my reasons for wanting it to use the F-150 rear end (i.e. leaf sprung solid axle):

 

1. I've not seen one review that praised the Expedition's ride as being better than the GM offerings (the only competition in the full-size SUV market). In fact, I've read a lot of reviews that complained about the ride quality.

2. I guaruntee you that IRS costs Ford a lot more to make because it's ( A ) way more complex than a solid axle with leaf springs, and ( B ) requires extra design work and different parts and tooling versus the F-150 design.

3. With it's ball joints and CV joints, there are more parts to wear out and need replacing and allignments, all of which contributes to increased maintenance costs versus the F-150 rear end design.

 

It seems like a no brainer to go back to a solid axle if the IRS design doesn't even ride any better.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Sevensecondsuv

[PREMiERdrum]

Why? Here are my reasons for wanting it to use the F-150 rear end (i.e. leaf sprung solid axle):

 

1. I've not seen one review that praised the Expedition's ride as being better than the GM offerings (the only competition in the full-size SUV market). In fact, I've read a lot of reviews that complained about the ride quality.

2. I guaruntee you that IRS costs Ford a lot more to make because it's ( A ) way more complex than a solid axle with leaf springs, and ( B ) requires extra design work and different parts and tooling versus the F-150 design.

3. With it's ball joints and CV joints, there are more parts to wear out and need replacing and allignments, all of which contributes to increased maintenance costs versus the F-150 rear end design.

 

It seems like a no brainer to go back to a solid axle if the IRS design doesn't even ride any better.

 

They'll keep the IRS, because the PowerFold 3rd row has become a staple for the Expedition, and an extreme advantage over the GMT900s. FWIW, I've also heard that the next gen GMT SUV's are keeping the solid rear axle, meaning that the 5,000lb, impossible to work with seat will stick around.

 

Having the IRS =/= poor handling.

[NickF1011]

As long as it remains profitable, there's no reason to cancel it. In fact, I would suggest if it is profitable now, a redesigned version would likely be even more profitable, since, given Ford's recent redesigns, it would likely steal away more market share from the GMT900's. GM certainly isn't going to cancel the Suburban/Tahoe/Yukon anytime soon. To cancel the Expedition would be entirely conceding a still considerably sized (considering the price segmet you're talking about) market.

Edited January 5, 2011 by NickF1011

[NLPRacing]

Why? Here are my reasons for wanting it to use the F-150 rear end (i.e. leaf sprung solid axle):

 

1. I've not seen one review that praised the Expedition's ride as being better than the GM offerings (the only competition in the full-size SUV market). In fact, I've read a lot of reviews that complained about the ride quality.

2. I guaruntee you that IRS costs Ford a lot more to make because it's ( A ) way more complex than a solid axle with leaf springs, and ( B ) requires extra design work and different parts and tooling versus the F-150 design.

3. With it's ball joints and CV joints, there are more parts to wear out and need replacing and allignments, all of which contributes to increased maintenance costs versus the F-150 rear end design.

 

It seems like a no brainer to go back to a solid axle if the IRS design doesn't even ride any better.

 

1. The ride may or may not be better, I don't know. But, when driving over uneven surfaces, you notice the difference. The IRS just sops it up while a solid axle throws you all around. Plus the 3rd row folds flat with IRS (see below). Driving the 2001 Expedition I traded in back to back to the 2007 Expedition EL that we have now, the handling is night and day different. The highway ride was about the same, but not having to deal with that so called "removable" seat was reason enough for us to upgrade.

 

2. Who cares. Better stuff usually costs more. IRS to me is a premium, I'll pay more for it. If it were a $1000 to $2000 option on the F150, I would get it on it too. Let GM cater to the cheap crowd.

 

3. Again, who cares. Everything wears out eventually. The 10-1/2 year old CV's on my F150's IFS still look new. If I get that kind of life out of my Expy IRS, I'll be happy.

 

They'll keep the IRS, because the PowerFold 3rd row has become a staple for the Expedition, and an extreme advantage over the GMT900s. FWIW, I've also heard that the next gen GMT SUV's are keeping the solid rear axle, meaning that the 5,000lb, impossible to work with seat will stick around.

 

Having the IRS =/= poor handling.

[akirby]

As long as it remains profitable, there's no reason to cancel it. In fact, I would suggest if it is profitable now, a redesigned version would likely be even more profitable, since, given Ford's recent redesigns, it would likely steal away more market share from the GMT900's. GM certainly isn't going to cancel the Suburban/Tahoe/Yukon anytime soon. To cancel the Expedition would be entirely conceding a still considerably sized (considering the price segmet you're talking about) market.

 

The key here is that it shares a platform with the best selling vehicle line in the U.S. That makes it possible to create and produce a vehicle in lower volumes and still be profitable.

 

People who buy $60K Navigators don't care if gas is $5/gallon. And if you're not concerned about hitting a specific sales target you can price it so that you make maximum profits on the ones you do sell.

 

It's a no-risk, win-win situation thanks to the F150 donor platform. If buyers stop buying it they can stop making them very easily. Until then why turn down the extra profits?

[jpd80]

The key here is that it shares a platform with the best selling vehicle line in the U.S. That makes it possible to create and produce a vehicle in lower volumes and still be profitable.

 

People who buy $60K Navigators don't care if gas is $5/gallon. And if you're not concerned about hitting a specific sales target you can price it so that you make maximum profits on the ones you do sell.

 

It's a no-risk, win-win situation thanks to the F150 donor platform. If buyers stop buying it they can stop making them very easily. Until then why turn down the extra profits?

While you'd think buyers of $60K Navigators don't care about $5/gal gas, they still want best in class fuel economy.

So maybe the Ecoboost V6 is enough to give them great economy as well as good towing. Couple that with Ford's

desire too reduce frame/vehicle weight of F150 by 500 lbs and the knock on effect to Expedition could be impressive

Edited January 6, 2011 by jpd80

[akirby]

While you'd think buyers of $60K Navigators don't care about $5/gal gas, they still want best in class fuel economy.

So maybe the Ecoboost V6 is enough to give them great economy as well as good towing. Couple that with Ford's

desire too reduce frame/vehicle weight of F150 by 500 lbs and the knock on effect to Expedition could be impressive

 

It goes without saying that it has to get best-in-class fuel economy. My point was that the fact that best-in-class may only be 16/22 isn't going to be an issue for a person buying a $60K Navigator even if gas is $5/gallon.

[bzcat]

Does Expedition and Navigator sell enough to justify the investment for IRS on the new F-150 chassis? Is the 2010 F-150 chassis engineered with IRS application in mind?

 

The reason 2nd gen Expedition and Navigator got IRS was because Ford was projecting HUGE sales volumes and profits based on how well 1st gen models did. Sales of fullsize SUVs have clearly leveled off from the peak during the Haliburton administration so maybe Ford will trade the IRS for ability to more frequently update the Expedition whenever F-150 is updated?

[akirby]

Does Expedition and Navigator sell enough to justify the investment for IRS on the new F-150 chassis? Is the 2010 F-150 chassis engineered with IRS application in mind?

 

The reason 2nd gen Expedition and Navigator got IRS was because Ford was projecting HUGE sales volumes and profits based on how well 1st gen models did. Sales of fullsize SUVs have clearly leveled off from the peak during the Haliburton administration so maybe Ford will trade the IRS for ability to more frequently update the Expedition whenever F-150 is updated?

 

Exactly. I'm sure Ford would like to continue the IRS as it gives them at least an advertising advantage but it depends on how much it will cost versus how much extra profit could be generated in sales. It may not be worth the effort. It hasn't seemed to slow down the GM SUVs.

[jpd80]

Exactly. I'm sure Ford would like to continue the IRS as it gives them at least an advertising advantage but it depends on how much it will cost versus how much extra profit could be generated in sales. It may not be worth the effort. It hasn't seemed to slow down the GM SUVs.

Since the IRS is already developed, those costs have already been amortized and sharing a much

lighter next generation F150 frame, albeit modified at the rear is no great engineering nightmare..

I can see F150 and Expedition losing around 500-700 lbs which will do more for fuel economy that

anything the power train department can come up with.

 

It goes without saying that it has to get best-in-class fuel economy. My point was that the fact that best-in-class may only be 16/22 isn't going to be an issue for a person buying a $60K Navigator even if gas is $5/gallon.

And that's where something like the lighter frame and IRS comes in to give a

technically better vehicle with superior ride and handling - class leading.

 

Ecoboost V6 + lighter frame would have a doubling effect on fuel economy and

performance, I see lighter vehicle/better engines as the road to improving the

vehicle's image away from gas guzzler. Better Expedition = better Navigator.

Edited January 6, 2011 by jpd80

[akirby]

And that's where something like the lighter frame and IRS comes in to give a

technically better vehicle with superior ride and handling - class leading.

 

Ecoboost V6 + lighter frame would have a doubling effect on fuel economy and

performance, I see lighter vehicle/better engines as the road to improving the

vehicle's image away from gas guzzler. Better Expedition = better Navigator.

 

Better fuel economy would be a bonus - just not a requirement.

[jpd80]

Better fuel economy would be a bonus - just not a requirement.

Believe me it will if gas prices hit $4/gallon, some buyers place emphasis on the darnedest things......

[akirby]

Believe me it will if gas prices hit $4/gallon, some buyers place emphasis on the darnedest things......

 

Not the ones around here who use their $60k Navigators to pull their $100k boats. They just fill up using the credit card and have the accountant pay the bill.

[jpd80]

Not the ones around here who use their $60k Navigators to pull their $100k boats. They just fill up using the credit card and have the accountant pay the bill.

Well i can tell you that people in the rest of the country were throwing their lifestyle trucks and SUVs away during the fuel spike,people with 80,000 trucks with big diesel engines and what not, anyone would think it was the end of the world and boy, you could get a real bargain on a low mileage truck/SUV.

 

Happened before so it could happen again...

Edited January 6, 2011 by jpd80

[blazerdude20]

anyone think the 3.7 v6 could work as a base engine in the expy? it makes pretty close to the same power as the old 5.4.

 

 

especially if the next version is 500+ lbs lighter.

[wildosvt]

Does Expedition and Navigator sell enough to justify the investment for IRS on the new F-150 chassis? Is the 2010 F-150 chassis engineered with IRS application in mind?

 

The reason 2nd gen Expedition and Navigator got IRS was because Ford was projecting HUGE sales volumes and profits based on how well 1st gen models did. Sales of fullsize SUVs have clearly leveled off from the peak during the Haliburton administration so maybe Ford will trade the IRS for ability to more frequently update the Expedition whenever F-150 is updated?

 

 

The IRS from the Expe/Nav can be installed in the '04-'11 F150. There is someone with a SVT Raptor installing the Expe IRS on it. I will try and find a link to it, It was a few months ago when I read about it.

[jpd80]

 

 

 

[akirby]

Well i can tell you that people in the rest of the country were throwing their lifestyle trucks and SUVs away during the fuel spike,people with 80,000 trucks with big diesel engines and what not, anyone would think it was the end of the world and boy, you could get a real bargain on a low mileage truck/SUV.

 

Happened before so it could happen again...

 

How many Navigators were they selling back then versus now? All of those people who were overstepping their budgets have gotten out of the market. The few that are left are the ones who can truly afford them and afford the gas. We're not talking about huge volumes here.