Ford to show all-new vehicle tomorrow. New Expedition?

[02MustangGT]

Looks great to me, very classy/Land Rover-ish. Although I am a little disappointed that the fenders/side panels will be shared with the new Navigator. I was hoping that the cut in the wheel arch would become a Lincoln only design trait (first seen on the Continental). I understand the purpose of sharing panels from a cost perspective so it's not a big deal (other brands do it as well).

[rmc523]

 

I really doubt it. Moving up to the Expedition is a decent jump in size, and if you don't need that size, you likely won't move up to the Expedition for the new features. My $0.02, but I know my wife wouldn't, and we will be in the market for a new Explorer in 2-3 years.

 

Agreed, though to be fair, it's not as if Expedition has been a relevant product for quite a long time....I'm sure it lost customers along the way that may come back.

[rmc523]

Looks great to me, very classy/Land Rover-ish. Although I am a little disappointed that the fenders/side panels will be shared with the new Navigator. I was hoping that the cut in the wheel arch would become a Lincoln only design trait (first seen on the Continental). I understand the purpose of sharing panels from a cost perspective so it's not a big deal (other brands do it as well).

 

This is the only case where that trait will carry over to a Ford vehicle. Otherwise, that'll be a Lincoln-only styling trait.

[02MustangGT]

@rmc.. Curious if use of aluminum from a cost perspective played any role in the decision to share panels. Since these vehicles are relatively low volume it would make sense. I will admit, I haven't compared the Edge/MKX up close, but at first glimpse, they don't share front fenders or panels. So it's nice to hear that the wheel arch cut will be Lincoln-only in other applications.

[fuzzymoomoo]

Looks great to me, very classy/Land Rover-ish. Although I am a little disappointed that the fenders/side panels will be shared with the new Navigator. I was hoping that the cut in the wheel arch would become a Lincoln only design trait (first seen on the Continental). I understand the purpose of sharing panels from a cost perspective so it's not a big deal (other brands do it as well).

A lot of that has to do with the fact that the properties of aluminum don't lend themselves to a lot of creases and folds like steel so that's why the panels are largely flat, same thing with the F-Series trucks.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Any rumors on what additional engine might be offered? If the 3.5 eco is standard, it's fun to think what might be optional. The easy answer is 6.2 but I doubt Ford would put a cast iron truck motor in the expy, and definitely not in the Nav. So what does that leave us that would be an actual upgrade over the 3.5 eco?

 

Will we finally see the 5.0 eco? How about the long stroke 5.0? Maybe an aluminum 6.2 boss with 3 or 4 valve heads? Heck, a short stroke aluminum V10 wouldn't be too hard really. Use the 5.0 dimensions and bore liner tech and build it on the existing V10 line. Of course the balance shaft would be an issue with the ticvt but where there's a will, there's a way.

 

Gas is cheap now, the competition ain't quitting the big 400+ HP gas motors, we've got a new administration that is signaling major relaxation in cafe and EPA regs. Seems like the stars could be aligning for Ford to give us a big displacement high performance gas motor. We all know it would sell.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[mettech]

Packing up and heading to Chicago to see it and the Mustang on 13 and 14.

 

Hope we can sit in them.

[fuzzymoomoo]

Packing up and heading to Chicago to see it and the Mustang on 13 and 14.

 

Hope we can sit in them.

Don't hold your breath, preproduction models are always locked.

[blksn8k2]

Since it looks so much like the Explorer, I wonder if it will steal sales from upper end Explorers to say a Limited Expedition to get the newest features?

 

This size SUV would be targeted at customers who need lots of seating and the ability to tow heavier trailers and boats. That's NOT the Explorer.

[rmc523]

@rmc.. Curious if use of aluminum from a cost perspective played any role in the decision to share panels. Since these vehicles are relatively low volume it would make sense. I will admit, I haven't compared the Edge/MKX up close, but at first glimpse, they don't share front fenders or panels. So it's nice to hear that the wheel arch cut will be Lincoln-only in other applications.

Oh absolutely that's why. At the volumes they're made in, it's far more cost effective to share stampings between the two. GM does the same thing even at higher volumes, Toyota does it with the Land Cruiser and LX, Nissan does it with the Armada and QX80, it's just a common approach in the large SUV segment.

 

And no, Edge and MKX don't share a single body panel. Nor do MKC and Escape or Fusion and MKZ. This will be the only model going forward that has any shared panels. Platforms will be shared, but not body panels outside of Navi.

[rmc523]

Any rumors on what additional engine might be offered? If the 3.5 eco is standard, it's fun to think what might be optional. The easy answer is 6.2 but I doubt Ford would put a cast iron truck motor in the expy, and definitely not in the Nav. So what does that leave us that would be an actual upgrade over the 3.5 eco?

 

Will we finally see the 5.0 eco? How about the long stroke 5.0? Maybe an aluminum 6.2 boss with 3 or 4 valve heads? Heck, a short stroke aluminum V10 wouldn't be too hard really. Use the 5.0 dimensions and bore liner tech and build it on the existing V10 line. Of course the balance shaft would be an issue with the ticvt but where there's a will, there's a way.

 

Gas is cheap now, the competition ain't quitting the big 400+ HP gas motors, we've got a new administration that is signaling major relaxation in cafe and EPA regs. Seems like the stars could be aligning for Ford to give us a big displacement high performance gas motor. We all know it would sell.

None of the above.

 

2.7EB and 3.5EB for now, with potentially a diesel and hybrid coming as soon as 2019 (at least for the former).

[fuzzymoomoo]

None of the above.

 

2.7EB and 3.5EB for now, with potentially a diesel and hybrid coming as soon as 2019 (at least for the former).

Hybrid would be sweet and would certainly lay a good smackdown on anything GM could hastily put together.

[rmc523]

I agree, and we already know it's coming for F-150, it would only make sense for Expy/Navigator to get the system.

[Moosetang]

Don't hold your breath, preproduction models are always locked.

Yeah couldn't sit in the new Mustang in DC, nor the EcoSport for that matter. But at least in person it looked better than the stills had indicated.

[fuzzymoomoo]

Yeah couldn't sit in the new Mustang in DC, nor the EcoSport for that matter. But at least in person it looked better than the stills had indicated.

That's good to hear. Living in Metro Detroit means I'm going to have to see a bunch of them on the road whether I like it or not.

[tbone]

I don't mind the Ecosport, but I wish it was built here though.

[Sevensecondsuv]

None of the above.

2.7EB and 3.5EB for now, with potentially a diesel and hybrid coming as soon as 2019 (at least for the former).

Yikes!! So the 2.7 is standard then? That engine suffices just fine in a 2wd F150 but it's kinda meager in an expedition.... The 3.5 eco is a respectable engine but it's still outclassed by the GM 6.2, just by the HP rating and more importantly, the exhaust note. Diesel and hybrid are both well enough and will find a few buyers, but I think Ford may have handicapped this thing by not offering a 400 HP V8, at least in certain trims. Clearly the GM twins are the benchmark and you at least have to be competitive if you want to be considered. Big SUVs and big motors just go together, it's part of their character / driving dynamic. Edited February 8, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[akirby]

The 3.5 eco is a respectable engine but it's still outclassed by the GM 6.2, just by the HP rating and more importantly, the exhaust note. .

Seriously? You think 460 lb ft at 4200 rpm is better in a truck than 470 lb ft at 3500 rpm? I guarantee you the 3.5lEB will outperform the gm 6.2L.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Seriously? You think 460 lb ft at 4200 rpm is better in a truck than 470 lb ft at 3500 rpm? I guarantee you the 3.5lEB will outperform the gm 6.2L.

Oh, I'm sure the 0-60 times will be similar, and the Ford will have a comparable or better tow rating, but it'll lack the big V8 feel and character of the GMs. Not to mention the 6.2 has about 40 HP advantage over the 3.5eb.

 

Look, I think the ecoboost engines are great and I've got nothing against turbos as a replacement for displacement. But they're not a complete replacement for a bigger motor in all applications. GM obviously has the right formula for these trucks as evidenced by sales numbers - buyers are obviously quite pleased with the motors GM is offering.

 

I just can't help but think that, once again, Ford stopped 5 feet short of a home run that might have really shaken up the segment. However, my mind might be changed by offering the raptor version of the 3.5eb.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[rmc523]

Yikes!! So the 2.7 is standard then? That engine suffices just fine in a 2wd F150 but it's kinda meager in an expedition.... The 3.5 eco is a respectable engine but it's still outclassed by the GM 6.2, just by the HP rating and more importantly, the exhaust note. Diesel and hybrid are both well enough and will find a few buyers, but I think Ford may have handicapped this thing by not offering a 400 HP V8, at least in certain trims. Clearly the GM twins are the benchmark and you at least have to be competitive if you want to be considered. Big SUVs and big motors just go together, it's part of their character / driving dynamic.

 

Why are you comparing the base engine for the Expedition to the top engine in the Yukon and Escalade (it's not available in Suburban)?

 

Furthermore, here are the facts:

 

In the F-150, the 2.7L EB makes 325-hp, 375 lb-ft

 

The 5.3L V8 in the Tahoe/Suburban makes 355-hp, and 380 lb-ft. So 30 more hp and 5 more lb ft of torque. That's it for them, no other option. This engine is standard in Yukon/XL too.

 

The 3.5L EB makes 375-hp, 470 lb-ft, which is 20-hp and 90 lb-ft of toque better than the Tahoe/Suburban.

 

The GM 6.2L makes 420-hp and 460 lb-ft of torque.

 

I'd say it's likely that the Navigator will get the Raptor's high output engine, which gets 450-hp and 510 lb-ft.

 

--- Ford has in no way "handicapped" this vehicle.

[rmc523]

Oh, I'm sure the 0-60 times will be similar, and the Ford will have a comparable or better tow rating, but it'll lack the big V8 feel and character of the GMs. Not to mention the 6.2 has about 40 HP advantage over the 3.5eb.

 

Look, I think the ecoboost engines are great and I've got nothing against turbos as a replacement for displacement. But they're not a complete replacement for a bigger motor in all applications. GM obviously has the right formula for these trucks as evidenced by sales numbers - buyers are obviously quite pleased with the motors GM is offering.

 

I just can't help but think that, once again, Ford stopped 5 feet short of a home run that might have really shaken up the segment. However, my mind might be changed by offering the raptor version of the 3.5eb.

 

Sales numbers for them are so high because they've been the only competitive offerings for the last decade+

 

As I said in my previous post, you can't compare the 6.2 to the Expedition because the Suburban/Tahoe don't have it. And, I think Navigator will get the Raptor's engine.

[Sevensecondsuv]

I don't know guys.... Maybe I'm just used to having the V10 in my excursion. I love the thing to death but it is getting kind of old. I was hoping Ford would hit a home run with the new expy and tempt me into a show room. I could be talked into giving up the 3/4 ton running gear but I'd be hard pressed to trade that V10 for a 3.5eb. It's just a completely different (lesser in my book) class of motor. I'm sorry but I would buy a GM over either ecoboost motor. Eight is just the minimum number of cylinders to feel right in one of these things. And I bleed Ford blue. I can't imagine buyers already in a GM or with less brand loyalty would be any more tempted by the expy than I am.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[fordmantpw]

I don't know guys.... Maybe I'm just used to having the V10 in my excursion. I love the thing to death but it is getting kind of old. I was hoping Ford would hit a home run with the new expy and tempt me into a show room. I could be talked into giving up the 3/4 ton running gear but I'd be hard pressed to trade that V10 for a 3.5eb. It's just a completely different (lesser in my book) class of motor. I'm sorry but I would buy a GM over either ecoboost motor. Eight is just the minimum number of cylinders to feel right in one of these things. And I bleed Ford blue. I can't imagine buyers already in a GM or with less brand loyalty would be any more tempted by the expy than I am.

Have you driven a 3.5EB? Or are just basing that notion on your incorrect assumption that a turbo charged engine cannot compete with a larger N/A engine?

[Bob Rosadini]

I don't know guys.... Maybe I'm just used to having the V10 in my excursion. I love the thing to death but it is getting kind of old. I was hoping Ford would hit a home run with the new expy and tempt me into a show room. I could be talked into giving up the 3/4 ton running gear but I'd be hard pressed to trade that V10 for a 3.5eb. It's just a completely different (lesser in my book) class of motor. I'm sorry but I would buy a GM over either ecoboost motor. Eight is just the minimum number of cylinders to feel right in one of these things. And I bleed Ford blue. I can't imagine buyers already in a GM or with less brand loyalty would be any more tempted by the expy than I am.

I have to say-agree with your earlier comment on exhaust note. While my SHO for sure is impressive with its power AND fuel economy, I have to believe there will be plenty of buyers out there who will want V-8 power-and the respective exhaust note- before they shell out north of 50 grand.

 

In any case I have to say IMO a good looking vehicle

[Sevensecondsuv]

Have you driven a 3.5EB? Or are just basing that notion on your incorrect assumption that a turbo charged engine cannot compete with a larger N/A engine?

You don't need to lecture me about turbos. Believe it or not, I was driving a turbo charged 4 cyl Ranger years before Ford coined the term "Ecoboost". Yes I've got experience with the 3.5eb F150s. Yes it's a great engine in the f150. But it's not a V8. It might pull like one but it doesn't feel like one. For a lot of applications this is just fine, but there's a reason Ford still offers the 5.0 alongside it. I think the same thing applies to the expy, except that an even higher percentage of buyers will insist on a V8 regardless of what the numbers say.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv