RSS
Blogs › The Motor Mouth
Crappy car of the Month: Ford Excursion
Posted November 27, 2008
Sierra Club members saw this as the automotive Antichrist, and you probably needed aerial assistance to see around one. The Ford Excursion was the apex of vehicular obesity, and the past year has shown us just how much of an Achille's heel vehicles like these really are. Sure, gas prices may have plunged recently, but it's somewhat of a moot point since most people don't have money to fill their tanks in the first place. It also underscored Ford's atrocious business strategy, which essentially led them — and the rest of Detroit — to where they are now.
Whether you recall them or not, you've seen them — and I believe they're one of the few man-made objects visible from space. With a 44-gallon gas tank, you're not filling up, you're stockpiling, and when gas reached $4 a gallon over the summer, you could expect an eye-watering fillup approaching $170. Not that any one of those gallons would stretch very far — maybe 14 mpg, if you have a light right foot. Which isn't bad for a car weighing close to 5 tons.
It raised an important question: Why? With the already Leviathan-sized Expedition, it seemed an experiment in testing the limits of good taste and garage sizes. You could seat nine — probably with prodigious amounts of head and leg room — which probably made them popular with polygamous families.
Consumption aside, it underscored a business strategy that set the stage for Ford's current problems. When health care and labor costs rose at an alarming rate, the Blue Oval bunch saw SUV as short-term, high-profit-margin solution to a more serious problem. When the price of gas rose, they found they could no longer subsist on the profits of trucks alone.
For the king's ransom you paid for one, you were treated to an interior that looked cheap in a Kia. Beancounters no doubt widened profit margins with rock hard, brittle plastic and other sins that chrome grilles couldn't atone for. Two gas engines — a 5.4-liter V-8 and a 6.8-liter V-10 — and a Powerstroke diesel were available, but the diesel was your best shot at double-digit fuel economy. Even with as much as 310 horsepower and 425 pound-feet of torque on tap, acceleration was leisurely — more in league with economy cars.
While current Ford vehicles tout environmental responsibility, there was no semblance of that in this vehicle. Volatile energy prices once again spelled doom for a generation of overweight cruisers. Will we ever learn?
If you don't have an Independent-Mail.com account, register here to comment on this and all Independent-Mail blogs
IndependentMail.com does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post or respond to every suggestion for a comment to be removed.
Before you post, consider this:
Please read our official user-contributions policy.
Posted by ApathyFades (Marc Palardy) on November 28, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It definitely would be a sin to drive these around unless they were fully loaded with a bus-full of passengers. That's what really gets me with these vehicles sometimes. In their hay-day a few years back, these monstrosities were only seen with a few passengers and a boat in tow. This was indicative of the citizenry who, even in the days of much lower fuel prices, were living this recreational dream on credit alone, and ultimately weren't able to afford it. Ford may have been able to make a quick buck back then. But now they, like many of the owners and past-owners of these beasts, are now paying the price for it.
Posted by MikeMcMillan (anonymous) on November 28, 2008 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hate trying to see around them in traffic.
Posted by BigBullyDawg (Eddie Tate) on November 29, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am the proud owner and daily-driver of an Excursion. This article is full of misinformation put out by a bunch of tree-huggers. I have the V-10, it has PLENTY of power, and I get @ 12 in town and just over 16 mpg on the highway. That's about the same as my previous vehicle, an Expedition, but you can't compare the two, based on room and purpose. The EX will pull a 30 ft camper like it's not even back there.
I live close to my work, so I bet you my avg daily consumption is probably less than most. I believe people need to quit whining about what someone else has, especially if they don't know the facts about it. As for seeing around or being behind the EX, it's rear footprint is no larger than any full-size truck, especially heavy-duty trucks. I love my EX, if you don't, so what?? If you aren't paying for it, don't whine about it.
Posted by MikeMcMillan (anonymous) on November 29, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't pay for one of these vehicles monetarily, but I pay each time I have to dodge a careless driver of a super-sized SUV yacking on a cell phone, or I have can't see around an SUV in order to make a safe turn.
But I'll tell you one group that really loves the Excursion: The Venezuelans and Saudis in OPEC.
Posted by MikeMcMillan (anonymous) on November 29, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I should say, "I can't see around an SUV in order to make a safe turn."
Posted by MassachusettsLiberal (Massachusetts Liberal) on December 1, 2008 at 12:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Do you expect me to raise my family with a sedan?
Posted by ApathyFades (Marc Palardy) on December 2, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BullyDawg,
You make a good point that your Excursion has the same size foot print as a full sized truck. However, Ford could have and should have made more of an effort to engineer a more efficient large recreational vehicle. For instance, using a straight-six turbo-diesel yields an enormous torque curve that can rival and gas-fed V10. With the ability to run on conventional or bio-diesel, it could achieve fuel economy in the 20s. Working on a farm, I drive huge diesel trucks every day and they're fantastic at hauling literally TONS of payload with ease while barely sipping fuel. I know that Mike's big problem with Excursions is that they block visibility on the road, but what about other big vehicles like box vans, dump trucks and tractor-trailers? I guess the big argument that can be had is that these big vehicles have purposes important to every day businesses. Excursions are largely seen as personal recreational vehicles and therefore, less important to everyone else.
Posted by ApathyFades (Marc Palardy) on December 2, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OOps, my bad, I forgot that they did make a diesel option. Either way, my argument still stands about diesels being a better alternative to gas powered trucks and SUVs if towing capacity is what you crave.