NickF1011 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 If they retained the fold flat 3rd row seat, you might be right. But, if it reverted back to a removable seat like the GM SUV's, owners of Expeditions & Navigators in the past 10 years would notice. They will notice, but what are they going to do about it, go buy the other fullsize SUV with a fold flat third row? Are there any others? Just how often does one find the need to fold and unfold the 3rd row anyway? I can probably count on one hand how many times my dad ever had the 3rd row seats folded up in his Durango. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 It makes no sense to abandon a high priced vehicle with an inherent profit advantage from sharing a platform with the high selling F150. It could if they required a dedicated production facility. This might be the case if F150 sales jump. They're already running 5 out of 6 shifts in 2 plants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spotdog14 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 It's a MUCH better looking luxury SUV with more HP than the Navigator. The GM SUV's outsell the Ford SUV's because the people that buy them are mostly soccer mom's with 2 kids that picked the Tahoe, Yukon or Escalade because it was "pretty". With that said, I still feel it's important for Ford to keep IRS in the Expy/Navi. Once the Ford SUV's are as pretty as the GM SUV's, the fold flat 3rd row because of the IRS and the EcoBoost MPG's will win them over every time. This is so true its not even funny. My wife wanted a Tahoe for some unknown reason. I drove a 2009 from Michigan to Nebraska last year and really hated its mushy steering and horrible 4 speed transmission. When we were finally in the market for one I took her to drive and Expedition and she loved the way it drove and I loved that it was a Ford. But she still likes the Tahoe because it "looks better" to her. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kstwister Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I think the Expy's have a kind of muscular look to them with rise in the hood. Never been wild about the back end but from a functional standpoint the boxy hind end works. You can get in and out, and lean in and out, without sliming your pants on all the dust/mud on the bumper cover. Our's has the powerfold third row and while initially I thought it was nothing more than a cool gimic, the utility of hitting a button to raise and lower the seats is awesome. It beats doing gymnastics to fold and unfold while holding a grocery bag in one hand and trying to corral kids with the other. It's my wife's favorite feature of our 2008 model. The power is on par or better than our old '02 Explorer with a 4.6 and 3.73's. Economy is just as good, if you want to call it that, too. We consisently get 18-19 mpg on the road loaded up. For a nearly 3 ton box, that's about as good as it gets now. I do wish for the Ecoboost though. Maybe on our next trade! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 A buddy of mine has an Expedition EL that he bough used (think its a 2010 or something)...I got to drive it a week or two ago, and I was kinda surprised with it...it had decent power, rode pretty good and had a nice seating position. I'd never buy one, but it was a nice SUV. He has 3 kids and a few big dogs, so it works for him...they call it the "bus" since its so big.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I'm hoping the new Expy gets a better nose along with every other potential improvement. I don't see the IRS going away, as it does help with packaging and has been evolved pretty successfully over the last decade. Here's to hoping the next Navigator isn't the fugly mistake the current one is. Yeah, I rail on Lincoln a ton...but when the last Navi came out, it was dead last in every category when compared to its peers. They really do need to do better than a grille change and nicer leather stitching this time around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Here's to hoping the next Navigator isn't the fugly mistake the current one is. Yeah, I rail on Lincoln a ton...but when the last Navi came out, it was dead last in every category when compared to its peers. They really do need to do better than a grille change and nicer leather stitching this time around. I'd point to the '13 Fusion/MKZ to see where potential differences will be. Should certainly be an improvement over the current one. Scaling up styling to that size is problematic though. Hopefully Max Wolff is the guy to get it done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30 OTT 6 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I would not be the least surprised to see the next F-150 with a coil spring SRA, a la the Dodge Ram. The coil spring set-up saves weight over the leaf springs. However, I'm not speculating that the Expedition is getting a coil spring SRA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 They will notice, but what are they going to do about it, go buy the other fullsize SUV with a fold flat third row? Are there any others? Just how often does one find the need to fold and unfold the 3rd row anyway? I can probably count on one hand how many times my dad ever had the 3rd row seats folded up in his Durango. Me personally, I would either hold on to my EL for as long as I could or buy another one the last year it's made and hold on to it as long as I could. My 3rd row gets used as often for passengers (when you have three kids, you tend to cart around their friends fairly often) as is it folded for hauling stuff. I don't have my F150 anymore, so the Expedition has become my de facto "pickup" and I have to say it works damn well. We also use it as a "toad" behind our motorhome and it makes a great "enclosed trailer" We traded our 01 Expedition in on this one and if I had to go back to having a removable 3rd row seat, that would suck. I guess I would have to look at getting a Transit or something like that to make up for the lack of cargo room behind the 2nd/3rd row seats. As far as the average consumer goes, if they want it, the Sequoia & Armada both offer fold flat 3rd row seats & IRS. The Armada is due for an update very soon and I’ve been seeing more and more Sequoia’s around lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 The coil spring set-up saves weight over the leaf springs It reduces capacity more than it saves weight, and thus I expect Ford will give it a miss. Going with significant usage of aluminum & composites in the body panels saves weight without reducing capacity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 It reduces capacity more than it saves weight, and thus I expect Ford will give it a miss. Going with significant usage of aluminum & composites in the body panels saves weight without reducing capacity. In fact, that may even increase capacity, as you have less vehicle weight counting against the GVWR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 True, but I tend to agree with those who suggest that Ford will instead keep payload & towing the same and go with more economical engine tuning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 In fact, that may even increase capacity, as you have less vehicle weight counting against the GVWR. Until you hit the upper limit of the coil spring which I'm sure is much lower than the upper limit of the leaf spring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Until you hit the upper limit of the coil spring which I'm sure is much lower than the upper limit of the leaf spring. I think you misunderstand. Nick was saying that, by lowering vehicle mass, Ford would be increasing payload/towing, if the GVWR & GCWR are kept the same as they are currently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I think you misunderstand. Nick was saying that, by lowering vehicle mass, Ford would be increasing payload/towing, if the GVWR & GCWR are kept the same as they are currently. I understood and agree that replacing a leaf spring with the same capacity coil spring would increase overall capacity due to lower weight. What I don't know is whether you could keep the same GVWR and GCWR with coil springs or if you would have to lose some of that capacity at the top end. I'm thinking you'd lose some of the max capacity and like you said I'm not sure Ford wants to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 You can't replace the leaf with a coil and keep the same capacity. There's a reason why trucks kept leaf springs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) You can't replace the leaf with a coil and keep the same capacity. There's a reason why trucks kept leaf springs. Unless you add other suspension components (such as air helper-springs) to accommodate for the shortcomings of coil springs. See 2013 RAM 1500... Edited August 24, 2012 by fordmantpw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) edit, not quote... Edited August 24, 2012 by fordmantpw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Unless you add other suspension components (such as air helper-springs) to accommodate for the shortcomings of coil springs. See 2013 RAM 1500... At which point, you're doubling down on a bad decision, instead of undoing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 At which point, you're doubling down on a bad decision, instead of undoing it. Which I can't argue with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Kolman Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Unless you add other suspension components (such as air helper-springs) to accommodate for the shortcomings of coil springs. See 2013 RAM 1500... It would seem by the time you add on the extra helper springs and such you've given up most of your weight advantage, and in turn took a really simple design solution and replaced it with a more complex one for little to no benefit. That fails the engineering test... Helper springs and such sounds like a kluge to a poor engineering decision. Benefit has to outweigh the cost... And complexity results in more cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 It would seem by the time you add on the extra helper springs and such you've given up most of your weight advantage, and in turn took a really simple design solution and replaced it with a more complex one for little to no benefit. That fails the engineering test... Helper springs and such sounds like a kluge to a poor engineering decision. Benefit has to outweigh the cost... And complexity results in more cost. I agree with you. The benefit is a better ride (supposedly). How much better is what determines if it stays or not. Ram either thought the benefit was worth it, or they didn't want to look like fools by going back to leaf springs. I'm not suggesting Ford goes with coils and adds air helpers, just a statement. I'm sure Ford has considered all options and will go with whatever provides the best set of compromises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 The benefit is a better ride (supposedly). And since ride quality has never been a complaint with the current F150 (at least not that I've ever heard) - I don't see the point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 And since ride quality has never been a complaint with the current F150 (at least not that I've ever heard) - I don't see the point. Agreed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I agree with you. The benefit is a better ride (supposedly). How much better is what determines if it stays or not. Ram either thought the benefit was worth it, or they didn't want to look like fools by going back to leaf springs. I'm not suggesting Ford goes with coils and adds air helpers, just a statement. I'm sure Ford has considered all options and will go with whatever provides the best set of compromises. Other issues with leaf spring suspension are axle wrap and wheel hop, which are complaints I have read about with the current F150. Coil springs are also better at controlling suspension movement which means the tires stay on the road better helping handling and braking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.