Last post on Apr 25, 2010 at 7:22 PM
You are in the Lincoln Navigator
What is this discussion about?
Lincoln Navigator, SUV
#34 of 196 Surprised by the comments...2007 Navigator
Apr 29, 2006 (4:05 pm)
I've read the comments here and in the end I was dumb founded and surprised at the level of negative responses. It seems as though the people responding are not owners of current Ford/Lincoln SUVs. I have owned several fords over the last 30 years or so. Most were highly reliable vehicles. Regrettably, they tended to have issues with the design of minor cosmetic components (including the interior, body trim, etc.) Nevertheless, they provided good value for the money. My most recent Ford vehicle is a 2004 Expedition, prior to that a 1998 Expedition, and F150s. I also own a BMW 8 series, and have owned several other luxury cars from different manufacturers. I say this to show that I have no "loyalty" to Ford. In fact, my father was a Chevy lover.
Prior to purchasing either of the SUVs I researched and test drove vehicles from accross the market (e.g. Cadillac, Lexus, Navigator, Hummer, etc.) In both the SUV purchases I found the Expedition to the best bang for the buck. The Navigator offered several creature comforts, but those comforts were not worth the additional increase in price (at least not to me). I believe Ford is being honest in their attempts to listen to customers. I have 4 issues with the Expeditions I own and have owned:
1) Common clutch pack failure (every 20k miles)
2) Leather cracks (multiple replacements under warranty)
3) 3rd Row Power seat is "wonderful" but there is little or NO usable room behind the 3rd seat (e.g. for luggage) when the 3rd seat is being used
4) The vehicle is too noisy in side (even with top of the line Mich. Tires.
Other than these issues, the vehicles perform(ed) flawlessly and are a pleasure to drive (the recent independent suspension upgrade in the rear made a real difference).
As a result of the additions to the NEW navigator I will be selling my 2004 Expedition and upgrading to the 2007 Navigator. I "like" the new grill and think that the old waterfall grill lacked style, was plain and feminine (soccer mom looking). The new look is more modern, high tech with a touch of retro design. The body line is more angular and streamlined, and there is a hint of the old Lincoln design in it. I don't particularily like the new gauges, but that is not such a big issue. What is important, is that the vehicle is easily distinguishable as a 2007 Navigator, that the new transmission (2nd generation) is smoother, more efficient, and more reliable. The vehicle is much quieter. It is still very safe, the leather and seating have been improved (both in quality of materials and design). The extra space in the extended version is what I need (big deal for me), and with that extra space you get an increase in the gas tank.
In regard to gas mileage, it is just fine. In fact, on the freeway with non-agreesive driving, I often get 25 mpg (the same as a late 90s Olds Achieve with 4 clynders) that I kept around for a spare vehicle.
Compared to the options, Ford makes the best SUV for the money, and has the best over all vehicle regardless of money. The independent suspension in the rear and power fold flat 3rd row seat are icing on the cake. The engine is tried and true and I have never in either Expedition, nor in any of the F150s "ever" had an issue with the engine. The vehicles is only further enhanced when purchased with the TOW PACKAGE (heavy duty radiation, extra cooler, etc) ** I don't even want to talk about the problems with the over priced BMW that is sitting in the driveway..nothing but problems, high costs of repair, etc...and it gets even worse gas mileage.
The Lexus doesn't compare in size, the Hummers are terrible to drive and have inefficient use of internal space and many less luxury features, the Range Rover (beautiful to look at) has doors that are so cheap they fell like you can tear them off the car and the vehicle is way over priced, the Denali is truely ugly, and the number one competior the Cadillac...does not have independent suspension in the rear, has a much less refined body style, no power 3rd row seat (its engine is bigger, but its mpg is worse...and the Expeditions/Navs already have more power than you can use...even when towing a load).
Thank you Ford for the upgrades on both your Expedition and Navigator's for 2007. I can't wait for January 2007.
PS: Ford...if you are reading...A 10" LCD for the DVD would be nice, and the addition of 2 additional wireless headsets (total of 4) would be nice.
#35 of 196 Re: Surprised by the comments...2007 Navigator [ljca]
Apr 29, 2006 (4:31 pm)
Interesting that you make these comments as if you have directly compared the 2007 Navigator to the 2007 Escalade. I suspect you have driven neither one of the 2007s yet.
The 2007 Nav will be an improvement in several ways. However, when compared to the Slade, it may not make the cut for many people. Nice that you like it and that it is available and you will buy it. Lincoln needs buyers as well who go for emotion and bling and all kind of other irrational purchase reasons. After all, no one "needs" a Navigator. The new Nav with the 1998 body isn't going to win this King of the Hill competition, no matter how good the IRS is.
#36 of 196 Comparisons
Apr 29, 2006 (8:25 pm)
I have driven the 2006 Escalade and Navigator. I don't think anyone that compares them honestly can argue that the Cadillac provides a comparable ride. Indeed, in the front seet, they similar...but for the passengers, and especially in the 3rd row, the ride in the Escalade is terrible. I know that my kids are reasonable insensitive to such things, but I make a point of riding in all three rows when test driving, and I have co-workers (both sedan and escalade fans) that have commented that even my Expedition is a "huge" ride improvement in the back seats over their Escalade. While both Cadillac and Ford are planning on minor suspension improvements, this gap is a result of the independent suspension. Further, the lack of the independent suspension results in very limited leg room in the Cadillac.
I have not OCD desire to buy a Navigator. I will, indeed, do a final comparison (with Cadillac and others) in Jan of next year. I'm confident that I will find the Navigator to be a better ride and prefer its other features (both mech. and comfort).
Regardless of my final decision, I can say with complete confidence that I can't imagine that anyone would be ultimately unhappy with either purchase. Both Cadillac and Ford make a "nice" SUV.
I'd like to think that people will be making their decision based on honest feature and personal evaluative comparisons and not as to whether or not the lattest "rapper" or movie star drives the vehicle. Or base a 60k purchase on whether or not they like they subjectively like the shape of a tail light or the placement of 6inches of chrome. There is nothing irrational about my purchase comparison parameters. In fact, my last posting is making a point that a good number of previous posting are emotional and seem to be coming from people that do not currently own a Ford SUV. I'm sorryt that you feel the need to try and personalize an attack. You are free to base your purchase on the looks of a vehicle, rather than the real value or usability. Such a choice is yours.
This forum, however, is about the 2007 Navigator. My comments were in regard to whether or not Ford was listening. I was hoping to provide my personal experience and perhaps toss in a bit of my personal excitement that the Navigator (style and features) may be a winner for me. And in my humble opinion, Ford was listening, and appears to have addressed several issues that were important to me.
#37 of 196 Re: Comparisons [ljca]
Apr 30, 2006 (5:56 am)
There is nothing irrational about my purchase comparison parameters. I don't think anyone was saying that there is anything irrational about your approach. Certainly not me. And in any event, there's no need to take it personally.
But I was suggesting that a lot of people purchase Escalades and the like based on less than rational reasons, and right now the Escalade seems to have the more winning combination in that regard. Lincoln needs to grow its sales, so attention to the details you like--along with more updated styling--would be even better. In the time the Escalade has been around (less time than the Nav), GM has completely changed its body (including the entire greenhouse area) and interior three times. The 2007 interior is a smashing improvement.
Meanwhile, Lincoln has beefed up the frame twice, added IRS, a 6 speed transmission and other very substantial changes hidden under the bushel of the 1998 body shell (albeit with new interior, front clip and tailgate). It is a good luxury SUV and will meet your needs nicely. But it is no wonder that the 2007 Slade looks fresher and more comtemporary, because it is. And lots of vehicles for better or for worse win the sales wars on looks alone.
#38 of 196 Re: Comparisons [gregg_vw]
May 01, 2006 (4:12 am)
But I was suggesting that a lot of people purchase Escalades and the like based on less than rational reasons...
Now I think that is the best description of why people buy luxo vehicles anyway, and pay a premium for all of those gimmickry add-ons they'll probably never use, like manumatics , and don't really need. At these price points and purchasing decisions, it's all about emotion.
Let's face it, most people just need to get from Point A to Point B. A Chevy Tahoe or Ford Explorer will do just as well as a Cadillac, Hummer, or Lincoln.
#39 of 196 Re: Comparisons [displacedtexan]
May 01, 2006 (7:05 am)
"But I was suggesting that a lot of people purchase Escalades and the like based on less than rational reasons... "
displacedtexan- I completely agree with your assessment. "Luxury" is not rational- it's emotional.
It's about how it makes you feel, not what it does.
My Timex keeps better time than my Rolex (which I never adequately shake so it's always an hour behind), but which one is my 'preferred" watch?
My Expedition does everything a Navigator does for a lot less money but guess which one we'll likely be buying?
That's right, the fancy one.
May 03, 2006 (5:15 am)
My 2006 Navigator is my third Navigator which followed a first year expo. I have about 5,000 miles so far and have had zero problems. That is a major improvement over past vehicles.
#41 of 196 holy smokes thats ugly
Aug 18, 2006 (8:57 am)
frankly this makes me ashamed to be american . this has to be the worst design ford has every come up with. i hope this poor dog just bombs and they end up doing an all new navi.
#42 of 196 Re: holy smokes thats ugly [subarufan1]
Aug 18, 2006 (9:05 am)
If this bombs, it may mean no more Navis.
It is definitely a polarizing grill, but much of the rest of it has the same appearance it has always had. The grill will get it noticed, and for all the people who will hate it, there will be others attracted to the flash. It doesn't have gas mileage or extra power going for it, so maybe this strange design will help it stay in the marketplace until Lincoln can re-think a more innovative replacement.
#43 of 196 Re: holy smokes thats ugly [gregg_vw]
Aug 18, 2006 (9:55 am)
It does have the folding 3dr row and IRS, but I think that's trumped by the Escalades 100hp advantage and better MPG.
I hope they price the Navigator $10-15k under the Escalade, otherwise it's on a suicide mission.
(PS, I kind of like the grille!)