2018 Expedition

[blk02edge]

Did you read the articles? Each articles' real world tests conducted disagrees with your opinion.

There is not a soul on earth who would argue that the 3.5 sounds better than the 5.0. It sounds terrible. At best you'll find someone so disinterested that they won't care.

The two equivalent trucks are trapping the same speed in the 1/4. 5.0 vs 3.5 power is marginal at best. I've spent enough time in one to say I believe the the 3.5 is interesting and different, nothing more.

When it comes to trucks, the less sound the better imo so how good they sound is irrelevant to me. As far as power, it's substantially faster when merging. Me and my buddy's just went out with two 3.5 EB trucks a '15 Sierra 5.3 and a 5.0 f150. The ecoboost wins by a freight train from a roll but slightly suffered from a dig. As far as gas mileage averages they are:
2016 f150 3.5EB- 21mpg city/hwy
2014 f150 3.5EB- 20mpg city/hwy
2014 f150 5.0- 19mpg city/hwy
2015 gmc sierra-18.5mpg city/hwy
(These are just the averages they all get driving to and from work so different drivers could vary I guess)

These are our own amatuer tests and we aren't paid by car&driver

 

[johnkn]

Did you read the articles? Each articles' real world tests conducted disagrees with your opinion.

There is not a soul on earth who would argue that the 3.5 sounds better than the 5.0. It sounds terrible. At best you'll find someone so disinterested that they won't care.

The two equivalent trucks are trapping the same speed in the 1/4. 5.0 vs 3.5 power is marginal at best. I've spent enough time in one to say I believe the the 3.5 is interesting and different, nothing more.

Another Ecoboost hater basing his opinions on sound. This is an Expedition thread, there is little if any perceivable difference in sound between the current Expedition 3.5EB motor and it's V8 predecessors. The exhaust system on an Expedition is completely different than that of a F150, the vehicle which you stated above is what you based your opinions on. I would suggest that the percentage of potential buyers of a new Expedition basing their buying decision on sound approaches zero. Your mileage may vary.

 

[mc01svt]

Sound = Subjective
Simplicity - For the 2018 model year the only substantial difference will be turbos (which I don't consider complicated).
Fuel Economy - EB gets better fuel economy than the 5.0
Fuel Economy Towing - EB gets better fuel economy than the 5.0

Where the EB falls short in fuel economy to the 5.0 is when you use the superior power of the EB. Can't get around thermodynamics, it takes fuel to make power.

The ecoboost beats a 5.0 on acceleration there is no question about that. Ford derated the coyote for truck use but thats a story for another day. After all, you want the customers to buy the pricier option. ; )

However it has been proven time and time again that the 5.0 gets the same or better mpg in real world driving as well as towing. This has been verified by several different independent 3rd parties and media outlets. Consumer reports, car and driver, edmunds, truck trend...etc.

 

[blk02edge]

The ecoboost beats a 5.0 on acceleration there is no question about that. Ford derated the coyote for truck use but thats a story for another day. After all, you want the customers to buy the pricier option. ; )

However it has been proven time and time again that the 5.0 gets the same or better mpg in real world driving as well as towing. This has been verified by several different independent 3rd parties and media outlets. Consumer reports, car and driver, edmunds, truck trend...etc.

sure media reports that because saying an ecoboost is worse gets views. My own real world comparisons do not agree

 

[johnkn]

It appears that the new power numbers are in. 400hp/480 tq. That's +35/60 over the current EB motor, 10 speed transmission and -300 lbs.

 

[black92]

It appears that the new power numbers are in. 400hp/480 tq. That's +35/60 over the current EB motor, 10 speed transmission and -300 lbs.

Link? That's only +20hp/20 more than the 2015-2017 Lincoln Navigator. The new trans and weight loss are going to make this a monster SUV, especially when tuned!!!

 

[Coiled03]

Exterior is hideous, IMHO. If they're trying to compete with the Escalade, they've failed in spectacular fashion.

 

[SID297]

sure media reports that because saying an ecoboost is worse gets views. My own real world comparisons do not agree

My tests of both do not agree either.

 

[DHG1078]

My Ecoboost fusion didn't come close to getting EPA ratings.

I test drove an Ecoboost f150, not the new generation, and really liked it. Very smooth. Got up to speed faster than you realized.

 

[evolve]

I am not a fan of this. I had an '11 Exp and loved it. Gas guzzling, big ass gal! She was great.

 

[johnkn]

Link? That's only +20hp/20 more than the 2015-2017 Lincoln Navigator. The new trans and weight loss are going to make this a monster SUV, especially when tuned!!!

Appears to have been leaked by Ford Canada. Remember the Navagator's power ratings are based on premium fuel (and likely doesn't pull as much timing out). The new Expedition will continue to be rated for regular fuel. It's never been clear to me whether the higher output of the Nav is a function of a different tune, or whether regularly running premium would boost the numbers.

 

[DHG1078]

Im petty sure Ford only quotes power numbers on 93 for all their cars.

 

[mc01svt]

It appears that the new power numbers are in. 400hp/480 tq. That's +35/60 over the current EB motor, 10 speed transmission and -300 lbs.

if true that's impressive. 480lb-ft is nothing to sneeze at..

 

[black92]

Had a little fun. I think I made the wheels a touch too dark and lowered too much, but you get the idea.

Before:

After:

 

[TheShadow]

Still can't get past that nose. I love the tech, but despise the look. The 09 Limited I already have just seems so much cleaner.

 

[johnkn]

It appears that the new power numbers are in. 400hp/480 tq. That's +35/60 over the current EB motor, 10 speed transmission and -300 lbs.

Some perspective on this motor, in 1998 the 7.3 PSD made an advertised 225 HP and 450 lbs of torque. Not trying to diminish the value of the big diesel, just a statement on how far we've come.

 

[SID297]

Some perspective on this motor, in 1998 the 7.3 PSD made an advertised 225 HP and 450 lbs of torque. Not trying to diminish the value of the big diesel, just a statement on how far we've come.

That's why I don't see a small diesel doing all that well in a vehicle like this. As long as gas is cheap why would you pay ~$4000 more to get 3 more MPG and have far less power? Look at the Nissan Titan XD, all the cost of a 3/4 ton with less capability and basically the same economy. It doesn't make a ton of sense.

 

[svtfocus2cobra]

That's why I don't see a small diesel doing all that well in a vehicle like this. As long as gas is cheap why would you pay ~$4000 more to get 3 more MPG and have far less power? Look at the Nissan Titan XD, all the cost of a 3/4 ton with less capability and basically the same economy. It doesn't make a ton of sense.

Speaking if Titan XDs, my good friend bought one about 3mo ago and he looking to have it purchased back. So far he has had it in the dealership for rust issues and a failed driveline. Aside from that he has had some bad luck and it got rea-rended while it was parked and then he slid off into a ditch and hit a mailbox in the snow. He loves the truck but it has been a nightmare for him so far. The driveline failure is pretty bad and he said when he was at the dealership a Nissan rep saw it and and what happened and said "Not the first time I've seen that happen!"

Sent from my SM-G935P using the svtperformance.com mobile app