Ford Expedition & Navigator

[silvrsvt]

As for your desire for the high 20's mpg truck... Join the Ranger Mafia, its our #1 complaint... F150 V6 might make 23 mph highway, which is great, but a EB4 Ranger should be around 28 mpg (and tow 5000 lb or carry 2000 lb). But we're being ignored...

 

Maybe a reality check is in store for you....

 

 

Current I4 Ranger:

 

Payload: 1130

Towing: 1500

 

V6 Ranger:

 

Payload:1280

Towing:3000

 

Hell the Ecoboost Explorer can't even do 5K towing....

 

Not to mention that I4 Ranger is lucky to get 22/27 and to get increased towing/payload rates, you have to upgrade to a V6, which gets even worse MPG's

 

I'm sure if they wanted to they could get better MPG numbers with an Ecoboost and better transmissions, but even the 2L I4 Ecoboost is still limited to 3500 lbs towing in the upcoming Escape. I wonder how much of an improvement it will really be over the current V6 and AWD...

[silvrsvt]

Liked the idea of the Sport Trac...but it was a gas hog and gets worse mileage than F150 making me an enigma within the empire of the Blue Oval.

 

I just looked up the EPA's MPG ratings on a 2010 2WD Sport Trac and F-150, both equiped with the 4.6L and they got identical #'s

[twintornados]

I just looked up the EPA's MPG ratings on a 2010 2WD Sport Trac and F-150, both equipped with the 4.6L and they got identical #'s

Well, then I stand corrected...they are both gas hogs and that makes me an enigma within the empire of the Blue Oval...

[Kris Kolman]

Silvrsvt, Once again you are comparing a CUV soft-ute platform... You don't know the limiting factor, which easily could be the transmission. The Explorer and Escape tow ratings were established for the market. There was no reason to go bigger, so they didn't spend anymore money getting extra capability. But if one only looks at the EB6 F150 we see that with 420 lb-ft of torque it has up to a 11,000 lb rating. That is 26 lb towing per 1 lb-ft of torque. Apply the same factor to the EB4's 270 lb-ft of torque you get 7071 lb. So the Ranger only needs to be 70% as effecient as the EB6 F150 to acheive 5000 lb towing capability. And that is ignoring 1000+ lb less curb weight benifit the Ranger has. But whatever... It's imposible and I'm breakign the laws of physics.

[twintornados]

Silvrsvt, Once again you are comparing a CUV soft-ute platform... You don't know the limiting factor, which easily could be the transmission. The Explorer and Escape tow ratings were established for the market. There was no reason to go bigger, so they didn't spend anymore money getting extra capability. But if one only looks at the EB6 F150 we see that with 420 lb-ft of torque it has up to a 11,000 lb rating. That is 26 lb towing per 1 lb-ft of torque. Apply the same factor to the EB4's 270 lb-ft of torque you get 7071 lb. So the Ranger only needs to be 70% as effecient as the EB6 F150 to acheive 5000 lb towing capability. And that is ignoring 1000+ lb less curb weight benifit the Ranger has. But whatever... It's imposible and I'm breakign the laws of physics.

And doing this.......................

 

 

:beatdeadhorse:

[jpd80]

Silvrsvt, Once again you are comparing a CUV soft-ute platform... You don't know the limiting factor, which easily could be the transmission. The Explorer and Escape tow ratings were established for the market. There was no reason to go bigger, so they didn't spend anymore money getting extra capability. But if one only looks at the EB6 F150 we see that with 420 lb-ft of torque it has up to a 11,000 lb rating. That is 26 lb towing per 1 lb-ft of torque. Apply the same factor to the EB4's 270 lb-ft of torque you get 7071 lb. So the Ranger only needs to be 70% as effecient as the EB6 F150 to acheive 5000 lb towing capability. And that is ignoring 1000+ lb less curb weight benifit the Ranger has. But whatever... It's imposible and I'm breakign the laws of physics.

 

The 2.5 I-4 T6 with 4x2 single cab chassis can tow 5500 lbs. - weight is roughly 3300 lbs

 

The 2.2 and 3.2 diesels with 4x4 Cab chassis can tow 7470 lbs - weight is 3870 lbs and 4440 lbs respectively

 

I think the smallest f150 is single cab with 6.5 foot box and IIRC, it's around 5300lbs with a 3.7 V6.

I have a feeling that Ford has achieved it 500-750 lb weight reduction for the 2014 model, so the

smallest F150 will probably be around the 4600 lb mark with the V6, a pretty good combination...

[Kris Kolman]

The 2.5 I-4 T6 with 4x2 single cab chassis can tow 5500 lbs. - weight is roughly 3300 lbs

 

The 2.2 and 3.2 diesels with 4x4 Cab chassis can tow 7470 lbs - weight is 3870 lbs and 4440 lbs respectively

Interesting... Have been getting my values from the Aussi Ford online brochure... Wouldn't have thought capacity values would be off... But it makes sense if one breaks it down.

 

2.5 I4 is only avaialble in 4x2 in Single Cab Chassis and Double Cab Pickup styles rated at 3269 lb and 3935 lb Curb Weight for each. The maximum Combined Mass for each is 6435 lb, with the difference being the maximum payload (3166 lb and 2499 lb). The Combined Mass (including Trailer) rating is 11275 lb , which would indicate 4840+ lb towing. But then it says 2200 lb towing capability as a seperate item. My guess is that this is somekind of Aussi legal issue that limits the claimed maximum allowable towing to 2200lb.

 

I think the smallest f150 is single cab with 6.5 foot box and IIRC, it's around 5300lbs with a 3.7 V6.

I have a feeling that Ford has achieved it 500-750 lb weight reduction for the 2014 model, so the

smallest F150 will probably be around the 4600 lb mark with the V6, a pretty good combination...

Still is going to be a significantly bigger vehicle than the T6 Ranger, comming in at higher prices for equivelent equipment, and signifcantly less fuel economy. Don't get me wrong the V6 F150 option is a great fuel economy -to- capability trade for those starting with a full-sized to begin with. And looks much better than the current poorly performing V6 compacts, including the old Ranger. But when compared to the potential of an EB4 version of the T6 Ranger, I don't think twice and go with the smaller truck.

 

Yes I suppose this is beating a dead horse... I relalize there is nothing I say here that will change Ford's decision. But am just trying to cut thru the BS on why we've been told no on the T6 Ranger... This is about cost to manufacture vs. size of the market segment nothing more. And that 's a shame because it truely looks to be a great product and one that I believe would revolutionize the market.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Kris Kolman

[jpd80]

Interesting... Have been getting my values from the Aussi Ford online brochure... Wouldn't have thought capacity values would be off... But it makes sense if one breaks it down.

Those figures ar from FoA site plus I have a friend........:shades:

 

2.5 I4 is only avaialble in 4x2 in Single Cab Chassis and Double Cab Pickup styles rated at 3269 lb and 3935 lb Curb Weight for each. The maximum Combined Mass for each is 6435 lb, with the difference being the maximum payload (3166 lb and 2499 lb). The Combined Mass (including Trailer) rating is 11275 lb , which would indicate 4840+ lb towing. But then it says 2200 lb towing capability as a seperate item. My guess is that this is somekind of Aussi legal issue that limits the claimed maximum allowable towing to 2200lb.

Aussie site is in metric, 2.5 I-4's tow rating is 2200 kg not 2200lbs.....

 

 

Still is going to be a significantly bigger vehicle than the T6 Ranger, comming in at higher prices for equivelent equipment, and signifcantly less fuel economy. Don't get me wrong the V6 F150 option is a great fuel economy -to- capability trade for those starting with a full-sized to begin with. And looks much better than the current poorly performing V6 compacts, including the old Ranger. But when compared to the potential of an EB4 version of the T6 Ranger, I don't think twice and go with the smaller truck.

I suspect FNA still wants to chase F150 sales as far as they can and obviously feel that selling a bigger truck makes asking

for higher transaction prices much easier , I'm still hopefull that they remove F150-F250 overlap but still leave space for Ranger..

 

Yes I suppose this is beating a dead horse... I relalize there is nothing I say here that will change Ford's decision. But am just trying to cut thru the BS on why we've been told no on the T6 Ranger... This is about cost to manufacture vs. size of the market segment nothing more. And that 's a shame because it truely looks to be a great product and one that I believe would revolutionize the market.

FNA is making a purely commercial decision to support F150 and take it as far as they can before admitting they need to add Ranger.

It may well be that they don't need it until MCE in 2016.

[FordBuyer]

It was a lot easier to justify when GM had 50% of the market (and there was more of a difference between the brands - they weren't just rebadges of Chevys).

 

They could solve the dealer problem by giving each GMC dealer a Chevy Truck franchise. However, I suspect someone at GM upper mgt likes GMC and has made a business case to keep them. Ford could have done the same thing to keep Mercury on the basis that it's making money. However, what Ford figured out is that it may make more sense to take that investment and put it elsewhere in the business (in Ford's case it went to make better Fords and Lincolns). GM is still trying to hold on to the past as much as it can and that will end up hurting them even more.

 

I believe that the past to GM means staying Number One at all costs. You would think that after going bankrupt, GM would care less about staying number one and instead focus on profits. But keeping GMC/Buick proves that they want to remain number one here and abroad. They seem to figure that if you can just keep on coming up with new models and have largest variety of vehicles around, you can be and stay number one in sales. I believe this old business axiom still holds true today: If you try to be all things to all people, you will eventually be in trouble. Easy for smart, flexible, focused companies to come in and knock you down a couple notches. Even the upstarts that come in an do very well meet the same fate when they too try to be all things to all people. They spread themselves too thin and then don't have the capital to keep their products fresh and exciting and just lose their way entirely.

[akirby]

But am just trying to cut thru the BS on why we've been told no on the T6 Ranger... This is about cost to manufacture vs. size of the market segment nothing more. And that 's a shame because it truely looks to be a great product and one that I believe would revolutionize the market.

 

Obviously Ford is working on something in conjunction with the new F150 that's a couple of years away. Why would they divulge anything about that plan now? What are they supposed to say? "We're killing the Ranger because we're putting the investment into a super fuel efficient smaller F series pickup."

 

Ford says whatever it needs to to protect future product plans. I don't understand why people are getting so hung up on words.

[FordBuyer]

Those figures ar from FoA site plus I have a friend........:shades:

 

 

Aussie site is in metric, 2.5 I-4's tow rating is 2200 kg not 2200lbs.....

 

 

 

I suspect FNA still wants to chase F150 sales as far as they can and obviously feel that selling a bigger truck makes asking

for higher transaction prices much easier , I'm still hopefull that they remove F150-F250 overlap but still leave space for Ranger..

 

 

FNA is making a purely commercial decision to support F150 and take it as far as they can before admitting they need to add Ranger.

It may well be that they don't need it until MCE in 2016.

 

It could be that the new Super Duties by mid decade will be size of present F-150, but of course still more capable as 3/4 ton and above, and new F-15 will be smaller and lighter meaning there will be no need to slot in a F-100 pickup for North America. And maybe then Ford can do a proper Expy and Bronco sharing F-150 architecture. I see the future Super Duty getting same fuel mileage as 2012 F-150, and new F-150 getting 26-28mpg with lighter weight materials, new aerodymanics, and drivetrains. A new Expy then would get close to 30mpg highway and maybe more with advanced hybrid. Throw in a 5 passenger RWD Bronco while we are at it that gets 30mpg in 2WD form. I can dream, can't I?

[FordBuyer]

Ford accomplishes the same thing with Platinum F150s. Either make higher trim level Chevys or make it a Caddy. The ONLY reason GMC exists is to keep the stand alone GMC/Buick dealers in business.

 

As long as GMC exists it proves to me that GM doesn't get it yet.

 

That excuse is so lame about now as Buick sales volume is three times greater than Lincoln. If it's true that GMC is still needed, then Buick has way too many dealers. GM did a decent job making the Terrain different from Equinox, but they would have done better getting out a version for Buick and closing down GMC IMO. Only now is Buick getting its own version of great selling small CUV that hits sweet spot of market. So they hurt Buick to keep GMC afloat. I personally don't see the purpose of creating a Sierra as opposed to just making more Silverados and new Silverado would probably be out by now if they didn't have to try and figure out how to make grille different on new Sierra. So how ludicrous can you get with in 2012 Buick/GMC dealers selling both Terrain and Encore along side one another. Even Chrysler wised up getting rid of Dodge Caravan after many Chrysler/Dodge dealers combining and selling identical minivans side by side.

[FordBuyer]

Gm just killed 2 Caddys an a Buick this year, are they not supposed to replace them?. The new trucks and upgraded Lambdas will be here in 13, I see what you say about having many nameplates but if there's a market fot it and the vehicles are competitive what's the problem?.

 

Good point in some ways, but not so good in other ways. Yes, Cadillac needs the XTS to replace the DTS/STS. Not sure you can make a case for the RWD ATS when GM has more pressing problems. As for the Buick Encore, Buick should have had this vehicle years ago when GMC got the Terrain. In fact, GMC should be gone and Buick would have shined even more with that vehicle in its lineup. GM doesn't need both the Terrain and Encore. GM has had a supply issue with those vehicles and doesn't need three pretty much same vehicles in lineup. Two is bad enough. Could you imagine Ford with three Escapes with different nameplates on each? I admit I didn't like Ford eliminating Mercury at the time, but this is a new era and in this reset economy that seems so strange now going forward. GM having Buick is strange enough, but having two truck companies is way beyond strange now. Smaller, more nimble companies like Ford are going to kill GM going forward. GM is like a battleship trying to beat a speed boat on an slalom course. And I say this as someone who hopes that GM does well going forward. I'm not a GM basher. I support the American based auto industry and so glad it's still intact and doing well for now. But I see trouble ahead with GM back to its old ways of a bygone era. The new era is going to be cruel to those companies like GM that are too big and ponderous.

[Fgts]

Good point in some ways, but not so good in other ways. Yes, Cadillac needs the XTS to replace the DTS/STS. Not sure you can make a case for the RWD ATS when GM has more pressing problems.

The ATS is really a CTS replacement as the next CTS gets upsized to pick-up where the old STS left. Since the next Camaro, ATS and new CTS will be on the same platform that should save cash.

As for the Buick Encore, Buick should have had this vehicle years ago when GMC got the Terrain. In fact, GMC should be gone and Buick would have shined even more with that vehicle in its lineup. GM doesn't need both the Terrain and Encore. GM has had a supply issue with those vehicles and doesn't need three pretty much same vehicles in lineup. Two is bad enough. Could you imagine Ford with three Escapes with different nameplates on each? I admit I didn't like Ford eliminating Mercury at the time, but this is a new era and in this reset economy that seems so strange now going forward.

China, Opel and certain GM buyers is what's keeping Buick around. The Chinese love Buick as GM overall plan is whatever Buick you get here you can get there and there using Holden and Opel platforms and engineering to do it, plus Buick buyers here will go to Toyota not another GM division if Buick got cancelled, just ask ne KIA buyer who were Pontiac buyers. I agree about why a Biuck "Terrain" is offered instead of a nicer Terrain (since its at a GMC/ Buick channel) or just steer buyers to the Caddy version.

Ford could have done much more with Mercury but that point is moot, hope they can make good Lincolns.

GM having Buick is strange enough, but having two truck companies is way beyond strange now. Smaller, more nimble companies like Ford are going to kill GM going forward. GM is like a battleship trying to beat a speed boat on an slalom course. And I say this as someone who hopes that GM does well going forward. I'm not a GM basher. I support the American based auto industry and so glad it's still intact and doing well for now. But I see trouble ahead with GM back to its old ways of a bygone era. The new era is going to be cruel to those companies like GM that are too big and ponderous. I'm pretty sure GM learned thier lesson (because there is no second chance) but like a business they still have things people want and need.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Fgts

[ausrutherford]

[/b]

 

The Terrain and Encore can exist together for they are too different classes.

 

Also, Buick would be around if not for Opel. The LaCrosse+Excelle sales in China still outsell the Opel-based Buicks.

[Kris Kolman]

Aussie site is in metric, 2.5 I-4's tow rating is 2200 kg not 2200lbs.....

 

Knew the metric-to-imperial conversion would get me

Edited December 26, 2011 by Kris Kolman

[2005Explorer]

GM having Buick is strange enough, but having two truck companies is way beyond strange now.

 

Considering how well Buick does in China I don't think it's that strange they keep them around. GMC is baggage however I guess it's profitable according to GM. It's hard to point fingers at GMs divisions and say they are doing it all wrong when Ford still has one division that is barely limping along on life support.

 

If Buick dealers really need GMC to help provide volume to be profitable (and maybe they do) what does that mean for standalone Lincoln dealers? Money must be very tight for them these days. Good luck on funding those multi-million dollar dealership remodeling projects Ford wants.

Edited December 26, 2011 by 2005Explorer

[FordBuyer]

Considering how well Buick does in China I don't think it's that strange they keep them around. GMC is baggage however I guess it's profitable according to GM. It's hard to point fingers at GMs divisions and say they are doing it all wrong when Ford still has one division that is barely limping along on life support.

 

If Buick dealers really need GMC to help provide volume to be profitable (and maybe they do) what does that mean for standalone Lincoln dealers? Money must be very tight for them these days. Good luck on funding those multi-million dollar dealership remodeling projects Ford wants.

 

That's my point...Ford is making more money and almost as much revenue by selling one brand as opposed to GM's four. And I bet it costs GM a pretty penny to market that "Professional Grade" image for GMC. The more brands you have, the much greater your marketing costs let alone MCE and total redesign costs. As for Lincoln dealerhships, they have seen Lincoln's plans and design direction, and must like what they see and in some areas touched. I wouldn't underestimate Ford's abilities when it really sets its mind to something. I remember there were lots of doubters when Hank the Deuce announced Ford would win LeMans back in the 60's. Not only did they win, but dominated. I would still argue that GM could make a lot more money and be much more competitive if it could give full attention to only Chevy and Cadillac. GMC and Buick are distractions. And North America is much more profitable than China where you have to share profits with partner. If GM wants to call a Chevy a Buick in China, then that would be better. Chevy should have the LaCrosse and Regal in North America and have a super strong lineup, not Buick. I shouldn't have to travel 12 miles to nearest Buick dealer when there is Chevy dealer three blocks from me. Ditto with GMC. This isn't 1955. Chevy still has a relatively weak lineup because of distractions like Buick still existing.

[akirby]

GMC is baggage however I guess it's profitable according to GM. It's hard to point fingers at GMs divisions and say they are doing it all wrong when Ford still has one division that is barely limping along on life support.

 

It probably is profitable, but that's not the question GM should be asking. It should be asking whether it's more profitable to keep GMC or kill it. If 90% of GMC buyers will buy the same vehicle with a Chevy badge (and let's face it - there's less difference between a GMC and Chevy truck than there was between a Ford and Mercury) then keeping GMC is the wrong business decision. It isn't worth the overhead.

[2005Explorer]

That's my point...Ford is making more money and almost as much revenue by selling one brand as opposed to GM's four. And I bet it costs GM a pretty penny to market that "Professional Grade" image for GMC. The more brands you have, the much greater your marketing costs let alone MCE and total redesign costs. As for Lincoln dealerhships, they have seen Lincoln's plans and design direction, and must like what they see and in some areas touched. I wouldn't underestimate Ford's abilities when it really sets its mind to something. I remember there were lots of doubters when Hank the Deuce announced Ford would win LeMans back in the 60's. Not only did they win, but dominated. I would still argue that GM could make a lot more money and be much more competitive if it could give full attention to only Chevy and Cadillac. GMC and Buick are distractions. And North America is much more profitable than China where you have to share profits with partner. If GM wants to call a Chevy a Buick in China, then that would be better. Chevy should have the LaCrosse and Regal in North America and have a super strong lineup, not Buick. I shouldn't have to travel 12 miles to nearest Buick dealer when there is Chevy dealer three blocks from me. Ditto with GMC. This isn't 1955. Chevy still has a relatively weak lineup because of distractions like Buick still existing.

 

I agree that GMC could go away, but I don't think it will anytime soon. As far as getting rid of Buick I don't really agree. GM is still a large enough corporation to be able to handle 3 brands. Chevy Buick and Cadillac isn't excessive for the largest automaker in the world. If anyone needs to cut divisions it should be Chrysler, but instead of cutting they are adding! GM is providing unique products to Chevy Buick and Cadillac. GMC is the exception. It is just rebadges.

[akirby]

GM is providing unique products to Chevy Buick and Cadillac. GMC is the exception. It is just rebadges.

 

Buick is only one step removed from a rebadge. What about Traverse and Enclave? Change the Enclave to a Caddy and put Chevy badges on all the rest. Continue to use the Buick badge in China but it's not needed here.

[FordBuyer]

I agree that GMC could go away, but I don't think it will anytime soon. As far as getting rid of Buick I don't really agree. GM is still a large enough corporation to be able to handle 3 brands. Chevy Buick and Cadillac isn't excessive for the largest automaker in the world. If anyone needs to cut divisions it should be Chrysler, but instead of cutting they are adding! GM is providing unique products to Chevy Buick and Cadillac. GMC is the exception. It is just rebadges.

 

So the LaCrosse wouldn't have made for a nice Impala in lots of more conveneintly located Chevy dealerships? And the great looking Regal couldn't have sold with the bowtie on it? I really don't think a case can be made for GM having four divisions. Ford has its hands full with two and one could argue 1.3 if that. For that matter, I don't see how Chrysler is going to make it with Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, Ram Trucks, and now Fiat divisions. Take away Jeep sales, and Chrysler sales don't look that hot.

 

Now maybe if auto sales stay around 13 million/year and go a little higher GM and Chrysler could hang in there with all those redundant divisions, but if the recession in Europe infects us, and we go back into recession, GM and Chrysler will be in a world of hurt marketing and keeping fresh all those redundant divisions. Ford has a hard enough time trying to make Lincoln a lust for portfolio of luxury vehicles in an economy that is still not normal as long as housing stays the way it is. Ford is configured in such a way that it can make money in a 9.5 million/year new car sales environment. Ford dropping Mercury looks better all the time as time passes. And it looks like most Mercury sales have gone to Ford as Fusion, and Escape sales have increased with more marketing dollars available to boot.

[FordBuyer]

Buick is only one step removed from a rebadge. What about Traverse and Enclave? Change the Enclave to a Caddy and put Chevy badges on all the rest. Continue to use the Buick badge in China but it's not needed here.

 

Instead of bringing Chevy upmarket as Ford did, Chevy is now looking dowdy and dated in comparison to Buick. The Traverse looks like a stripped version of Enclave. What good does it do to increase Buick sales at expense of Chevy? Looks to me like upstart domestic buyer will look at Ford or Buick before looking at Chevy. I know I would if I were just a buyer with no brand loyalty. The new Focus, soon new Fusion and Escape will blow Chevy out of water. Not good for GM and especially Chevy. Why have a great halo car like the Corvette if you are going make Chevy into a decontented, dated looking brand?

[jpd80]

Buick is only one step removed from a rebadge. What about Traverse and Enclave? Change the Enclave to a Caddy and put Chevy badges on all the rest. Continue to use the Buick badge in China but it's not needed here.

Well IMO, Buick is still needed as a quality mid brand because Chevrolet is so terrible - that's where Ford brand has really gaped GM.

While ever GM is suck in the Disneyland of maximizing production, they won't ever change, they can't bring themselves to see

that what they're doing is self defeating, Ford is banging at the door with 166,000 sales a month and still they cannot see.

[2005Explorer]

Well IMO, Buick is still needed as a quality mid brand because Chevrolet is so terrible - that's where Ford brand has really gaped GM.

While ever GM is suck in the Disneyland of maximizing production, they won't ever change, they can't bring themselves to see

that what they're doing is self defeating, Ford is banging at the door with 166,000 sales a month and still they cannot see.

 

Buick is doing fine and should finish the year with about 170,000+ sales and I would imagine most of those sales are a lot higher margin then Chevy sales. GMC will finish the year with about 370,000 sales and I would once again imagine that their profit margin exceeds Chevy truck and CUV sales. Although us Ford people might think it's dumb and all GM needs is Chevy and Cadillac it seems to be working for them. It might not be as streamlined and they do have to design and market another sales channel, but maybe they have done more research then we have. I mean maybe they know they would lose customers to other brands instead of just having them jump to Chevy or Cadillac.

 

I know how things worked for Mercury and most customers ended up in a Ford, but remember when GM cut Oldsmobile they lost a huge majority of those customers to other non-GM brands and that was when GM still had a lot of different brands taking up space between Chevy and Cadillac. I don't think Buick is a bad brand. Buick drivers seem to be pretty loyal to the brand and many of them would not jump down to a Chevy. I feel like Ford and Mercury were basically the same car rebadged and Mercury wasn't looked at as a premium brand. I can say for certain that most people consider Buick a more premium brand then Chevy.

 

Just be glad GM got rid of all that other baggage. It's amazing they survived as long as they did before bankruptcy considering all the baggage they used to carry around.

 

Now what was this thread about? Oh yeah... why is the Expedition and Navigator still using that old underpowered and gas guzzling 5.4 Triton when Ford has something so much better to bolt into them.

Edited December 27, 2011 by 2005Explorer