- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
Ford's Expedition SUV snubbed by Consumer Reports
- Thread starter NFS4
- Start date
As usual Consumer Reports has nothing to say. They use random sampling to get their data and it is often very wrong.
You will notice their reports receive very little press when compared to a few years ago.
Ford continues to set sales records with their SUV line.
You will notice their reports receive very little press when compared to a few years ago.
Ford continues to set sales records with their SUV line.
[Ferengi mode on]
This could turn into a HOT DEAL. If the sales of the Expedition start to slump more, we could see more options for "test drive" certificates. Maybe, they'll up the amount of the Mastercards that they hand out for the test drives from the current $75.00 amount.
[Ferengi mode off]
This could turn into a HOT DEAL. If the sales of the Expedition start to slump more, we could see more options for "test drive" certificates. Maybe, they'll up the amount of the Mastercards that they hand out for the test drives from the current $75.00 amount.
[Ferengi mode off]
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
Who wrote that? Chevy? How exactly did Ford get "snubbed" or "smacked"? This is SOP for CR. This is a brand new vehicle, not based on any other platform therefore it does not get a reliability recommendation. The Honda, which is a new vehicle based on other platforms, gets a recommendation based on the reliability of those platforms. It is all clearly stated in the CR article and it is the way they have always done business. "Ace Reporter" indeed. How dissapointing.
As usual CR has a lot to say without being influenced by whoever wrote that artical that NFS4 linked to. Their reports are right on, well researched and that subscription is well worth the cost. As far as their data goes, what is the alternative to random sampling? CR gets a huge sample based on their subscriber base and their data is very accurate. You are talking out of your ass if you say different. Again very dissapointing.
Two of my favorite people here and this morning you are both prattling on like Czar and Moonbeam. Extremely dissapointing.
bahhhh a chevy couldn't make it once around my diameter without the starter or fuel pump going out.
bahhhh a chevy couldn't make it once around my diameter without the starter or fuel pump going out.
Their data is indeed gathered from their readers who just happen to buy into all their babble. You are saying they are not influenced by such unsubstiantiated claims? I wonder just how many loyal Ford owners buy a magazine that continually bashes domestic autos let alone take part in their skewed surveys?
I had a subscription for many years and found their analysis incredibly wrong too many times involving many things and not just automobiles. I use it for info but hardly give it credence enough to base my buying solely on their articles.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
Cut & paste job from CR:
First page:
There are good reasons not to buy a large, full-sized sport-utility vehicle: They are gas gluttons, create excessive pollution, handle ponderously, and as a class SUVs tend to roll over more easily than passenger cars. Full-sized SUVs can be hard to park and difficult to climb into and out of. And higher, heavier SUVs inflict excessive damage to cars in collisions. For most people, there are better choices.
What full-sized SUVs do offer is extra interior space, the ability to tow a heavy trailer, decent off-road capability, and, commonly, seating for eight people. For this test, we compared three such models: the Chevrolet Tahoe, which was last redesigned for 2000; the Ford Expedition, redesigned for 2003; and the Toyota Sequoia, introduced for 2001. Like all full-sized SUVs, they are wider, taller, and longer than a typical midsized model such as the Ford Explorer, and they are built on a trucklike body-on-frame chassis. The prices of our three test vehicles ranged from about $41,000 to $46,000.
Because many buyers choose a full-sized SUV primarily for the eight-passenger capacity, we wanted to see how our three vehicles compared with a modern, car-based midsized model that offered an equal number of seats in a smaller package. So we bought the new-for-2003 Honda Pilot, which went on sale this summer.
The Pilot not only earned an overall score well above those of the three full-sized models, but it marginally outranked the five-passenger Toyota Highlander, becoming our top-scoring recommended SUV. The Pilot's carlike chassis provides a nice balance of ride comfort and handling response. Its smooth, quiet powertrain provides both quick acceleration and the best fuel economy--19 mpg--we've obtained in a seven- or eight-passenger SUV. The Pilot is more maneuverable and more refined than the other three, and it has an easy-to-use third-row seat that, in this group, is excelled only by the Expedition. At about $33,000, it also costs thousands less than the others.
The trade-offs? The Pilot's all-wheel-drive (AWD) system, with no low range, is not designed to tackle serious off-road terrain, although it is fine for the kind of adverse weather and moderate off-road conditions with which drivers typically deal. The Pilot also can't match the hefty towing capacity of the full-sized models, and it's not quite as roomy.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Pilot shares components with two other excellent vehicles, the Honda Odyssey minivan and Acura MDX SUV. Besides excellent driving performance, the Pilot is easy to maneuver and has top-quality finish. Based on past performance of the Odyssey and the MDX, we expect above-average reliability. The third-row seat easily folds flat into the cargo floor when not needed, so it doesn't take up cargo space and is always with the vehicle. However, tight legroom makes the seat better suited for children than adults. A rather high level of road noise is our only major gripe.
The Pilot comes in two well-equipped trim lines, LX and EX. Buyers can choose an optional GPS navigation system or a rear DVD entertainment system, but not both. Our EX, with leather and navigation system, came to $32,980.
If you need the extra room and towing capacity of a full-sized SUV, the Toyota Sequoia scored well among the models we tested. The Sequoia is based on the full-sized Toyota Tundra pickup. Strong points include a smooth powertrain that provides reasonable acceleration and acceptable fuel economy for the class, a quiet and spacious interior, and standard electronic stability control. Reliability has been excellent, too. On the down side, the ride is stiff, handling is clumsy, and the third-row seat is tight and hard to access.
We bought the top-line Limited version, which starts at $42,725 with four-wheel drive (4WD). Adding side and side-curtain air bags, sunroof, and upgraded audio system, the price was $46,017.
With its 2003 redesign, the Ford Expedition is no longer based on the Ford F-150 pickup. It now stands lower than the pickup and has a fully independent suspension similar to that of the Pilot, which gives it a well-controlled ride and relatively responsive handling. The Expedition also has a very spacious and flexible interior, with good fit and finish and a convenient power-operated third-row seat that folds into the floor like the one in the Pilot. That third-row seat is the roomiest of this group, with enough width and legroom for three adults. Cargo space is generous and loading is easy. However, the 5.4-liter V8 lacks power and delivered just 12 mpg overall, twin failings that undercut this otherwise well-conceived package. Reliability for the redesigned version is not yet known; previous models have been average.
We opted for a top-of-the-line Eddie Bauer version with 4WD and a 260-hp, 5.4-liter V8, which starts at $41,195. With stability control, side-curtain air bags, sunroof, DVD rear-entertainment system, and a power-folding third-row seat, the price was $45,860.
The Chevrolet Tahoe was redesigned and vastly improved for the 2000 model year, and it has optional stability control for 2003. It's basically the same as the GMC Yukon and the more expensive Cadillac Escalade. The Tahoe's outstanding asset is its smooth, strong, quiet powertrain, which provided the quickest acceleration of the group. It also has a spacious cabin. However, the third-row seat is hard to reach, uncomfortable, and a nuisance to remove. The ride is only so-so overall, and cabin fit and finish are unimpressive. Based on our latest survey, reliability has improved to average, allowing us to now recommend the Tahoe.
We chose the higher-trim LT, equipped with a 285-hp, 5.3-liter engine. With the towing package, our Tahoe totaled $41,357.
I use CR as a research tool, not the be-all & end all of auto reviews. They do carry quite a bit of weight among a group of folks with the $ to buy these vehicles, so their opinion does tend to affect vehicle sales. Also, I agree with them, unless you use this vehicle as a towing rig every day, it's irresponsible to purchase a new vehicle that gets 12 mpg.
First page:
There are good reasons not to buy a large, full-sized sport-utility vehicle: They are gas gluttons, create excessive pollution, handle ponderously, and as a class SUVs tend to roll over more easily than passenger cars. Full-sized SUVs can be hard to park and difficult to climb into and out of. And higher, heavier SUVs inflict excessive damage to cars in collisions. For most people, there are better choices.
What full-sized SUVs do offer is extra interior space, the ability to tow a heavy trailer, decent off-road capability, and, commonly, seating for eight people. For this test, we compared three such models: the Chevrolet Tahoe, which was last redesigned for 2000; the Ford Expedition, redesigned for 2003; and the Toyota Sequoia, introduced for 2001. Like all full-sized SUVs, they are wider, taller, and longer than a typical midsized model such as the Ford Explorer, and they are built on a trucklike body-on-frame chassis. The prices of our three test vehicles ranged from about $41,000 to $46,000.
Because many buyers choose a full-sized SUV primarily for the eight-passenger capacity, we wanted to see how our three vehicles compared with a modern, car-based midsized model that offered an equal number of seats in a smaller package. So we bought the new-for-2003 Honda Pilot, which went on sale this summer.
The Pilot not only earned an overall score well above those of the three full-sized models, but it marginally outranked the five-passenger Toyota Highlander, becoming our top-scoring recommended SUV. The Pilot's carlike chassis provides a nice balance of ride comfort and handling response. Its smooth, quiet powertrain provides both quick acceleration and the best fuel economy--19 mpg--we've obtained in a seven- or eight-passenger SUV. The Pilot is more maneuverable and more refined than the other three, and it has an easy-to-use third-row seat that, in this group, is excelled only by the Expedition. At about $33,000, it also costs thousands less than the others.
The trade-offs? The Pilot's all-wheel-drive (AWD) system, with no low range, is not designed to tackle serious off-road terrain, although it is fine for the kind of adverse weather and moderate off-road conditions with which drivers typically deal. The Pilot also can't match the hefty towing capacity of the full-sized models, and it's not quite as roomy.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Pilot shares components with two other excellent vehicles, the Honda Odyssey minivan and Acura MDX SUV. Besides excellent driving performance, the Pilot is easy to maneuver and has top-quality finish. Based on past performance of the Odyssey and the MDX, we expect above-average reliability. The third-row seat easily folds flat into the cargo floor when not needed, so it doesn't take up cargo space and is always with the vehicle. However, tight legroom makes the seat better suited for children than adults. A rather high level of road noise is our only major gripe.
The Pilot comes in two well-equipped trim lines, LX and EX. Buyers can choose an optional GPS navigation system or a rear DVD entertainment system, but not both. Our EX, with leather and navigation system, came to $32,980.
If you need the extra room and towing capacity of a full-sized SUV, the Toyota Sequoia scored well among the models we tested. The Sequoia is based on the full-sized Toyota Tundra pickup. Strong points include a smooth powertrain that provides reasonable acceleration and acceptable fuel economy for the class, a quiet and spacious interior, and standard electronic stability control. Reliability has been excellent, too. On the down side, the ride is stiff, handling is clumsy, and the third-row seat is tight and hard to access.
We bought the top-line Limited version, which starts at $42,725 with four-wheel drive (4WD). Adding side and side-curtain air bags, sunroof, and upgraded audio system, the price was $46,017.
With its 2003 redesign, the Ford Expedition is no longer based on the Ford F-150 pickup. It now stands lower than the pickup and has a fully independent suspension similar to that of the Pilot, which gives it a well-controlled ride and relatively responsive handling. The Expedition also has a very spacious and flexible interior, with good fit and finish and a convenient power-operated third-row seat that folds into the floor like the one in the Pilot. That third-row seat is the roomiest of this group, with enough width and legroom for three adults. Cargo space is generous and loading is easy. However, the 5.4-liter V8 lacks power and delivered just 12 mpg overall, twin failings that undercut this otherwise well-conceived package. Reliability for the redesigned version is not yet known; previous models have been average.
We opted for a top-of-the-line Eddie Bauer version with 4WD and a 260-hp, 5.4-liter V8, which starts at $41,195. With stability control, side-curtain air bags, sunroof, DVD rear-entertainment system, and a power-folding third-row seat, the price was $45,860.
The Chevrolet Tahoe was redesigned and vastly improved for the 2000 model year, and it has optional stability control for 2003. It's basically the same as the GMC Yukon and the more expensive Cadillac Escalade. The Tahoe's outstanding asset is its smooth, strong, quiet powertrain, which provided the quickest acceleration of the group. It also has a spacious cabin. However, the third-row seat is hard to reach, uncomfortable, and a nuisance to remove. The ride is only so-so overall, and cabin fit and finish are unimpressive. Based on our latest survey, reliability has improved to average, allowing us to now recommend the Tahoe.
We chose the higher-trim LT, equipped with a 285-hp, 5.3-liter engine. With the towing package, our Tahoe totaled $41,357.
I use CR as a research tool, not the be-all & end all of auto reviews. They do carry quite a bit of weight among a group of folks with the $ to buy these vehicles, so their opinion does tend to affect vehicle sales. Also, I agree with them, unless you use this vehicle as a towing rig every day, it's irresponsible to purchase a new vehicle that gets 12 mpg.
FeathersMcGraw
Diamond Member
- Oct 17, 2001
- 4,041
- 1
- 0
Reliability reports, perhaps, since I can't think of any other reliable metric short of the number of requests lodged to customer service, but their product evaluations are performed in labs by testing experts. They outline their methodology on their web page.
Probabilistically speaking, there are always going to be experiences off at the end of the bell curve that don't jibe. I'm not sure I can think of a different authority to get product evaluations and recommendations from if you dismiss CR out of hand.
The Toyota Sequoia they recommended gets the same: www.edmunds.com/reviews/longterm/articles/59751/page005.html.
When are they going to start showing commercials that link buying SUVs to terrorists?
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
There's another reason for that though. Ford, Chevy, and Honda ALL have recalls from time to time. Heck, Honda even recently had a recall on transmissions for some of their recent V6-equipped models. But those are a rather rare occurance. The reason why the Expedition wasn't looked upon favorably by CR is b/c:
1) The '02 Explorer was recalled 4 times within 4 months of being launched (breaking rear glass, cut tires due to misaligned production lines, etc.)
2) The Escape was recalled at least 6 times within the first year of production
3) Both the new Thunderbird and certain V8 models of the Lincoln LS had to be recalled (or at least delayed delivery) b/c of problems with the engine. This delayed the launch of the T-Bird
4) Ford's recall poster-child...the Ford Focus has been recalled at least 9 times in the past 2 years.
All of these were brand new models that were riddled with problems at launch.
Tominator: CR/CU purchases all their vehicles and road tests them. How much more "random" would it get? They have a staff that tests and evaluates the new vehicle reviews.
SUBSCRIBERS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Well, maybe they do. CU dosent advertise so their subscritption $ goes towards paying for it.
Chief Sohmer is referring to their reliabilty ratings, a database that is maintained by annual subscriber surveys, not new car evaluations.
wje: $75 is all I was in for. If I have to spend $30,000+ on something that gets 12 MPG, I'll go to the chevy dealer and get a suburban. Just as much $, fuel "economy" and a hell of a lot more space to boot.
The ferengi doesn't look at initial outlay, we review TCO. Its like why we dont buy cheap stuff that we know will break. We buy higher quality goods and stack rebates and coupons with a free warranty extenstion from Amex Blue.
I tried out the Expedition, and it was 6/10. Thats how I scored it, not its EPA estimated city/hwy fuel economy. I hit my head on the way out, the interior fit and finish was plasticky and felt cheap, and although the powertrain was smooth it was inefficient IMHO. Handling was fairly precise and non-boat like, but there are many factors CU takes into consideration when they make their decisions.
-PAB
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
For the "reliability" ratings that consumer reports does each year...the ones with the little black, white, and red circles...evaluating a whole slew of areas for each vehicle are done by subcribers. CR has the subscribers fill out information based upon the vehicles they own, and their experiences with them, and then writes the reports based on that. Hence CONSUMER reports.
My money is on the Accord, Camry and Passat.
Not neccessarily in that order. Its been the status quo.
-PAB
Last test it was Passat GLS, Maxima GXE, Accord EX.
Worst was Leganza CDX.
Best Car Tested was BMW 530i.
Have not seen the new results.
Just drove one of these last weekend (to get my AT $75 debit card!):
Likes (Eddie Bauer edition):
1. Sunroof
2. Climate control (like a home thermostat - set the temp) Cadillac was doing this 20 years ago but it's still a neat gimmick
3. Power folding third seat
4. Chrome trim around AC vents (think Audi TT)
5. Auto-tilting mirrors (shift to reverse and the side view mirrors tilt down about 20 degrees, go into drive and they swivel back up)
Dislikes:
1. Plastic bumpers instead of metal (like previous years)
2. 3rd seat headrests block seat from folding down (wait till the kids discover this one)
3. To get to the third row is a multi part process: Pull lever to fold down second row seat, pull tab to lift seat forward, and hold seat in place (doesn't catch automatically) to get into third row. If you don't hold the 2nd row seat 'up' while getting in it will fall back into place - a nuisance if you use the third row often. The dealer wanted to demonstrate how easily he could do it since I had trouble, and he bumbled it even worse, took him nearly a minute just to get the seat folded.
4. The chrome trim is just plastic.
5. The side view mirrors are rectangular instead of the rounded shape on older models, doesn't match up very well with the rest of the truck.
If I bought one I would remove the 'middle' second row seat (captains chairs) to permit easy access to the back. But the seats aren't designed to be removed so you have to remove trim, bolts, etc. to get it out.
Likes (Eddie Bauer edition):
1. Sunroof
2. Climate control (like a home thermostat - set the temp) Cadillac was doing this 20 years ago but it's still a neat gimmick
3. Power folding third seat
4. Chrome trim around AC vents (think Audi TT)
5. Auto-tilting mirrors (shift to reverse and the side view mirrors tilt down about 20 degrees, go into drive and they swivel back up)
Dislikes:
1. Plastic bumpers instead of metal (like previous years)
2. 3rd seat headrests block seat from folding down (wait till the kids discover this one)
3. To get to the third row is a multi part process: Pull lever to fold down second row seat, pull tab to lift seat forward, and hold seat in place (doesn't catch automatically) to get into third row. If you don't hold the 2nd row seat 'up' while getting in it will fall back into place - a nuisance if you use the third row often. The dealer wanted to demonstrate how easily he could do it since I had trouble, and he bumbled it even worse, took him nearly a minute just to get the seat folded.
4. The chrome trim is just plastic.
5. The side view mirrors are rectangular instead of the rounded shape on older models, doesn't match up very well with the rest of the truck.
If I bought one I would remove the 'middle' second row seat (captains chairs) to permit easy access to the back. But the seats aren't designed to be removed so you have to remove trim, bolts, etc. to get it out.
I think I have only ever seen like 2 of those things in my life on the road...
wonder why though eh? cause they are a big ugly hard to maneuver pain in the ass of a vehicle.. bleh!!
wonder why though eh? cause they are a big ugly hard to maneuver pain in the ass of a vehicle.. bleh!!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter