Ask the Car People.SM


Ford Expedition

1707 messages,  Last post on Sep 24, 2012 at 7:42 PM

You are in the Ford Expedition Forum.

What is this discussion about? Ford Expedition, SUV

Messages Page 142 of 172

#1402 of 1707 Post 1401 by fx4

Sep 13, 2004 (6:39 pm)

Agree with 1401 about the new gauges. Prefer speedo right in center and let tach, etc. find a spot. Haven't seen new dash with key on, but seems like 2005 is trade down much like changes of
many models of Fords long years ago.
 
Fuel mileage-both my 2003 and 2004 Expeditions had/have a 2.5% odometer error. Actual miles traveled are 2.5% more than odometer indicates based on interstate mile makers. That's a lot of extra warranty. Ha! Checked my odometers against mile markers in several different states in 10 mile increments-same 2.5% slow reading in all cases. Thus actual fuel mileage must be adjusted upward 2.5%. In my case anyway.
 
Vents in dash--worse than ever. Left one reflects boldly in left outside rear view mirror whether sort of satin or the new chrome ones. Gaudy to worse?
 
Hey NVBANKER. Agree 5.4L does well in 2V, 3V, 4V. 5.4L 2V 260 hp a lot stronger all around in 2004 than 260 hp in ligher weight 2000 5.4L 4wd Expedition. Final grear ratios near the same due to 16" tires on 2000. Could it be tranny, or new 5W-20 oil, better Cf drag, etc in 2004? 4R75W tranny unlocks nicely on grade to give a bit of extra performance. Eager to try 5.4L 3V in 2005 Expedition. 5.4L 3V not that impressive in demo of 2004 F-150 4wd. However, power (and fuel mileage) starts to come on strong after 5,000-10,000 in some of the new engines.
 
Update--liking the 2004 20.5-1 steering ratio in NBX model, versus 17-1 in 2003 FX4. 2004 NBX has extra driving comfort versus 2003 FX4 not accounted for by new 4R75W transmission. Must be steering ratio. May be slightly different spring rate between 2003 FX4 and 2004 NBX. Don't know? Might be the black paint. ha!

#1403 of 1707 GM Piston Slap by fx4

Sep 13, 2004 (6:58 pm)

Did you guys see post on Blue Oval News recently?
GM owners hot all over USA. My brother's 2001 GMC
Yukon XL with 5.3 had slap or peck even new. Vehicle stolen early on by nut who later was taunting THP with it. Stuffed his weed down his throat and made a run for it. Brother's later 2003 Suburban doesn't seem to have the piston slap in 5.3L engine. Learned GM redesigned piston and ring land in late 2002.
 
Friend had 6.0 or 8.1 gas in 2500 or 3500 truck that sounded like a "gas diesel" right off the showroom. Dealer replaced engine immediately to satisfy loyal high income customer.
 
Attorneys are trying to work GM case into class action status all around USA.

#1404 of 1707 GM piston slap by wkohler

Sep 14, 2004 (9:45 am)

I own a 2001 suburban with the 5.3L (since new) and do have a little piston slap on start up for a few seconds. Vehicle has almost 70M miles on it and no problems. Still as strong as ever. My wife drives an 03 Expedition with the 5.4L. Much prefer the "drivability" of the suburban. Suburban has more "pick up" and better gas mileage. So, we're not ALL hot over a little piston slap.

#1405 of 1707 Post 1404 by fx4

Sep 22, 2004 (10:10 am)

A guy in Florida was so "hot" about the piston slap problem that he started www.pistonslap.com. Ha!
 
Your view generally reflects what GM is saying according to some accounts I have read. However, my brother Boyd was major aggravated with the noise in his 2001 GMC Yukon XL given the premium price dealers were getting then. Any odd noise just seems to immediately demand the dealers' and automakers' attention no matter the source or whether the function of the vehicle is impacted.
 
I too like the Suburban and Tahoe cabs or bodies, wheelbases, turning radius, etc. However, three of my brothers and a nephew who have late model 1500 series Suburban and/or Yukon XL report an unpleasant feel in the rear end handling of the late models versus the earlier leaf spring Suburbans in 1500 series. That's four out of four very experienced owners picking up on something definite they don't like about the late model GM handling. No comparison to new IRS Ford engineering.
 
I tried out the 5.3L in Yukon and found the brakes to be very mushy compared to the 2003 Expedition FX4 that I owned at the time. The Yukon was brand new and the brakes probably would have gotten better with some wear. Don't know, but believe GM has some catching up to do?
Ford does squander the larger, better brakes of the 2003 and up Expy models by having excessive vehicle weights versus the more reasonable weights of the late model GM products.
 
As mentioned in my earlier post, my 2004 NBX is much more comfortable to drive than the 2003 FX4. The 4R70W tranny in the FX4, 5.4L is suspect changing down when turning corners.
 
Finally, the GM prices and dealer cost %. The semi-sorry Ford Expeditions beat the over priced GM products (at least off the new show room). Try to buy a Tahoe with off-road package lately!

#1406 of 1707 by steve_ HOST

Jan 29, 2005 (11:24 am)

"If you drive one of the listed vehicles, make a date with your dealer to get this replacement."
 
Ford to Recall Trucks and SUVs (Inside Line)
 
Steve, Host

#1407 of 1707 Re: 4.6L [nvbanker] by ford_owner

Jan 29, 2005 (8:10 pm)

Replying to: nvbanker (Sep 07, 2004 4:54 pm)
I have had both the 5.4L and now currently the 4.6 in the EB Expedition. I dont see much difference in power, only maybe lose a little of the towing capacity with the 4.6L. If your not towing alot, then the 4.6L does fine. Also just wanted to say that I installed a K & N Washable air filter in the 4.6L and man talk about a difference in power and acceleration! These kits as you may have heard are designed to draw more air into the engine , thereby breathing more efficiently and increasing both HP and mileage. I have notice a difference in acceleration and am getting an increase of around 1.6 to 2.2 MPG city/highway respectively. in my opinion, but take care all

#1408 of 1707 Side Impact Testing by 307web

Feb 01, 2005 (4:41 pm)

Was side impact testing ever done on the 2004 or 2005 Expedition? I can't find any side impact test results for any Expedition models.

#1409 of 1707 2000 Ford Expedition Cruise Control Recall by dontshopthewal

Feb 01, 2005 (8:26 pm)

I have one of the affected 2000 Ford Expedition's with the Cruise Control recall. My Expedtion has 60,000 miles currently. What exactly are the dangers of the malfunctioning cruise control?
 
Thank you.

#1410 of 1707 Re: 2000 Ford Expedition Cruise Control Recall [dontshopthewal] by steve_ HOST

Feb 02, 2005 (8:30 am)

Replying to: dontshopthewal (Feb 01, 2005 8:26 pm)
Defective speed-control switches can overheat and result in fires under the hood.
 
Inside Line
 
Steve, Host

#1411 of 1707 2004 EB Exp review by jplyman

Feb 02, 2005 (10:03 am)

We have had our 04 EB since Christmas and we love it. My wife traded in her 2000 Jeep GC Limited and has been very impressed with Exp. When driving she dosen't feel like she is driving a big truck and the ride is great. We currently only have one child and he loves it also because he can climb into/out of his car seat easier and I love the extra space the exp gives us (or other car is an Audi A4). We have 5.4L our dealership didn't have many choice left and gave us a great deal! Our gas mileage is 1 Mpg better than our Jeep... we took this on our trip to Florida (9 Hours one way) and it was great comforatable ride for all. I perfer it over the chevy products - I had a 2003 chevy avalanche for a year and perfer the Ford to the chevy in all aspects. I would highly recomend this SUV to anyone looking for an SUV.
 
Good Luck!

Messages Page 142 of 172

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement