Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Ford Expedition

1232426282956

Comments

  • bear36bear36 Posts: 10
    Many posts on this board including some of mine have asked about how to boost HP and torque. We'll I finally took the plunge and put an exhaust system on my Expy. I have a 2000 5.4 EB, I have for a while now been using a K&N air filter, it noticeably helped power and response at higher RPM's and improved gas milage a little bit about .5 miles per gallon. A month ago I had installed, a Gibson swept side exhaust system. My God what a difference! Gibson claims on to give a 15 HP boost to the rear wheels so that probably is at least 20 at the engine. The swept side is pretty quite the increase in loudness is barely noticeable although it is noticeable. The sound changed a little bit also almost like the car has more Testosterone. Stock the 2000 5.4 has 260hp and 350 torque On paper I now have 290 HP and close to 400 torque I did not have my car dyno tested before or after but there is definitely a power increase I even noticed on the freeway at 75 the tachometer is 200 or 300 RPM's lower than before. Too soon to tell if there is gas savings but based on the tach reading I would guess so.
    bye
  • I was thinking of getting that exhaust my self. Even though its a quality exhaust, there is no way that you now have a 290Hp Expedition. Adding all of those things did not give you that much Hp. When they claim things its usually installed with some other part that will produce part of that HP. If you get it dyno tested your at the wheels HP will be a lot less then 260.
  • co_daveco_dave Posts: 16
    How did you manage to lower the RPMs at highway speeds. At those speeds your torque converter should be locked up. Your RPMs should remain constant, just easier and it won't have to unlock as much - unless that is controlled by the computer instead of load.
  • ecd71ecd71 Posts: 1
    This is a relatively inexpensive option for the 2003, but does anyone know exactly what info it provides? Is it a dummy light that tells you that you are low, or does it give the running pressure of each tire? Also, it replaces the alloy wheels on the EB with aluminum. Is that an upgrade or down? Does it look different? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
  • co_daveco_dave Posts: 16
    I hear that the 2003 Expedition is on a delivery hold - might be having a problem that they hope to fix without having a recall that could hurt the image. Also here are some of the current production delays:

    Special Service Vehicle Pkg. (fleet only) est. Job #1 ‚ 9/9/02
    (51P) Tire Pressure Monitor production delayed until 8/5/02
    (240A) FX4 Off Road Pkg. on hold until 9/3/02
    XLT standard steel wheel on hold until 9/3/02, to be substituted with bright alloy aluminum wheels at no charge
    Moonroof option may delay production by 4 weeks
  • the other day. It looks like a large exploder. This design will definately not last.
  • bamacarbamacar Posts: 749
    I drove one over the weekend. My dealer had 3. I agree the look is too Explorer like, but it is starting to grow on me. The ride and steering is light years ahead of the old one. The 3rd seat is wonderful compared to the old one. I was generally impressed. The price was also reasonable given the size and amenities. It was a XLT Premium.
  • bodymanbodyman Posts: 23
    This afternoon I stopped by the dealership that sold me my '02 Eddie Bauer to see the '03 models. Sitting out front was the new virtual twin to my model. It was the same color, engine, 2WD, etc. as mine, with the newer one having the reverse sensor warning system. Outside, the major body differences are obvious. I do feel that the door handles and rear gate handle look weak and are prone to break with time. The keyless entry pad has been moved to the glass moulding area, and is smooth. Also, the mirror mounted signal lamps are below the housing, and are several inches long and wedge shaped. Kind of gaudy European style to me. One mirror feature I liked was that when put in reverse, the right mirror automatically lowers to help you spot curbs and objects. Also, when the key TOUCHES the ignition switch, the seat memory activates. The cassette player/CD changer set-up is now an in-dash 6 CD unit with no tape player. The steering wheel adjustment is now more of a column up/down adjustment. The door armrests are flat, not angled. Front seating was different, but comfortable. Rear (middle) seating is totally redesigned, but I did not try it. I checked out the fold flat 3rd seat operation, and it worked smoothly. There is noticeably more 3rd seat foot room, also, due to the dropped floor and independent rear suspension. If you have others using the 3rd seat, it could come in very handy. I happen to leave my seat out for better visibility and less weight. And of course, I had to drive it, so off we went. I took a bumpy, narrow country road for several miles, and then in town driving. Lastly, I hit the highway at 55 mph. All in all, I did not find any drastic differences in ride quality. I even took the bumpy country road when I left, just to compare, and mine was more comfortable. With all of the visual and mechanical changes between the '03 and my '02, I still prefer the '02 I left in. The '03 is nice, but if I had been offered an even trade for my 4000 miler, I honestly would pass. Just my opinion.....
  • gregfockergregfocker Posts: 39
    bodyman - you have to be kidding me that you did not notice a difference in ride quality on the 2003! Moving to a four-way independant suspension is one of the biggest changes on the vehicle. I was looking at a 2002 and 2003 and rode them back-to-back on the same test drive course. What a HUGE difference! The 2003 did not bounce up & down or lean side to side nearly as much as the 2002. The steering has completely changed as well and is much smoother and responsive than the 2002's (and earlier).

    Everything underneath in the 2003 is much more desirable than the previous Expedition model. The exterior is an entirely different issue. I really don't like the looks of the 2003 Expedition. The style looks good on the smaller Explorer but not on the bigger Expedition. It looks too chunky IMO. I prefer the exterior of the 2002 Expedition and the driveability of the 2003. I opted not to get either...
  • cpearson1cpearson1 Posts: 30
    This system does not tell you the pressure in each tire. It displays messages in the message center in the instrument cluster:

    "Warning-tire very low" This means put air in one of the main tires right away.

    "Check tire pressure" This means tire pressure is a little high or low in one of the main tires.

    "Check spare tire pressure" This means tire pressure is high or low in the spare tire.

    I don't know what the values are for the different messages. This system is better than that in many cars because it also monitors the spare.
  • bodymanbodyman Posts: 23
    Like I said, I noticed no "drastic differences" on the route I took. My point being that with the comparisons I made, and the drive I took, I personally prefer the '02. I don't mean to knock the newer model, just noting some changes I found. Regarding the IRS and IFS, I understand the the differences in design. I probably would have appreciated the changes under harsher driving conditions. Again, it is just my opinion. I would like to try the 4WD versions of both, too.
  • gaci1gaci1 Posts: 1
    After eagerly awaiting the arrival of my 2003 4X4 Expedition, I must say how disappointed I am in Ford. Although the 2003 Expedition drives and handles so much better then previous models, and I am pleased with the vehicle overall so far, my experience with Ford prior too, and after the sale was very poor if not just bad. Neither Ford or it's dealers knew much about the vehicle or it's arrival date. Nor did they care. Ford still has not resolved their ride height problems, the rear of my vehicle looks like a kids car jacked up in the air and Ford nor the dealer knows what to do.
    It was level when I picked it up from the dealer, but over the last 500 miles something changed. Since there is no Air suspension everyone is perplexed. Unfortunately Ford has put a brake system in the Expedition, that creates brake dust.
    I hate brake dust. What could ford be thinking.
    Here we have a beautiful vehicle that looks dirty all the time because the wheels are black with brake dust. Is it because they are to cheap to engineer a brake system that not only works well, but does not cause brake dust. Besides the fact the black dust looks horrible, how bad is it for our environment ? If I had known before I purchased this 2003 Expedition, about how bad the black dust would be, I would have gone with the Yukon.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,172
    Ford Expedition top-ranked full size SUV per J.D. Power and Associates 2002 Initial Quality Study.

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • alwaysfordsalwaysfords Posts: 210
    "Unfortunately Ford has put a brake system in the Expedition, that creates brake dust"

    All brakes create dust. Ante up the $40 for brake dust shields.
  • 3dglasses3dglasses Posts: 11
    Have you thought about putting ceramic pads in the front (the OEM pads should be ceramic)? They create much less brake dust (base on my experience with other vehicles). They are however a little pricey. Mine were $98 for the front pads at NAPA. I couldn't find ceramics for the rear so I got heavy duty pads ($47). I'll put them in this weeked.

    Brake dust is a fact of life. You are stopping a heavy truck.

    Also, RE my post about vibrations. It seems my local Tire Kingdom had a broken wheel balancer. I'll go in this weekend to see if rebalancing solves my rear vibration at 40-55 MPH.
  • stang92stang92 Posts: 4
    did ford put the turn signal in the mirrors. iam looking to get a 98expy is that a good year to get. thanks
  • oldfart_63304, if you want a softer ride, get an Expedition with an air suspension. I drove one without this option and it felt like my pickup truck. When I drive my air suspension equipped Expy the ride is much better.

    stang92, the Expedition/F150 changed for 99. If you want to have an Expy with a newer look get a 99+. I myself have a 97 Expedition and a 1998 F150 because I did not want to have the plastic bumper that was installed on 99+. Besides the front bumper, nothing much was changed. But as your username states that you have a mustang dont expect a quick acceleration. I used to have a 1996 GT before this and the Expy is much slower.

    It all also depends on the engine choice. As you may already know, there is a 5.4 V8 and a 4.6 V8. I have the 4.6 and can say that it is very reliable. Iam at 101k miles with no problems. Good luck on finding your dream truck.
  • I feel the 2003 is too small inside. It's supposed to be "the same" but :

    1) I have less headroom/legroom in the back than a 2002 expy.

    2) Overall, the 2003 is shorter by 2 inches vs a 2002

    3)the trunk base is only 49" when you have rear air vs 54" for a 2002.

    also what's up with those cheap silvery handles on the inside?
  • It can be added but I dont think that it will be cheap. It might take a lot of work as well. Iam not sure which brands are available but you can check out www.performancewarehouse.com. They may have some of the parts.
  • alwaysfordsalwaysfords Posts: 210
    Other brake ideas - Raybestos makes a low dust pad, but as of my last brake job 5 months ago it wasn't available for Expeditions (1999 anyway). I had used them before on my wife's T-bird and they were awesome. Same stopping power, almost no dust.
  • co_daveco_dave Posts: 16
    The Raybestos ceramic pads that are low dust ("Quiet stop") are available now. They run about $75 at Checkers. They might have to be ordered. I didn't want to wait so I went with the next ones in stock. Still good, but plenty of dust.
  • sterlir1sterlir1 Posts: 3
    Picked it up this weekend. Turned in a 3-year lease 4Runner Limited. Toyota's quality is not what everyone says it is. I've talked to two Sienna owners who've had the notorious sludge problems. My '89 4Runner blew the head gasket in 1992. Unfortunately, the recall brouhaha hadn't yet kicked in, so I paid, not 'yota.
    No car company is perfect, but alot of the things in the Expy are very appealing to an expecting couple. Those pedals, everyone should be rushing to get them to market. Why is Ford so far ahead of the pack on this one?
    Anyhow, looking to see what this will be like. I must say, it's a different ride than the old. We don't have the 'air' suspension, couldn't afford an EB, but this rides as well as an LS Tahoe, the only other vehicle we considered after ruling out the Sequoia as too pricey. X-plan price hard to obtain this early, but we got it locally; guess we're lucky. The other 2 dealers would only drop 500 bucks.
    Curiously, all three dealers had T-birds and SVT Lightnings in stock. All nice colors. Surprising.
    Glad to be back, Ford fans.
  • sterlir1sterlir1 Posts: 3
    GG007 wrote: It all also depends on the engine choice. As you may already know, there is a 5.4 V8 and a 4.6 V8. I have the 4.6 and can say that it is very reliable. Iam at 101k miles with no problems.

    That's good to hear. We plan to keep this until at least as long, since it's so expensive compared to our Accord. Gotta get our money's worth.
  • s76drvrs76drvr Posts: 15
    3D Glasses,

    Did you cut the rotors when installing the ceramic pads? If not, are you getting any squeal?
  • stlgasmanstlgasman Posts: 139
    Has anyone driven the 2003 with a 4.6? Is it adequate?
  • bodymanbodyman Posts: 23
    Adequate if you don't live in the mountains, haul three passengers regularly, or tow anything heavy. The 5.4 torque curve peaks at a lower RPM than the 4.6, so the smaller engine seems to "come in" at a higher RPM. The 5.4 has more low end grunt, and pulls harder at lower speeds. I have a 4.6 '02, and I have driven the '03 with that engine.
  • boonsboroboonsboro Posts: 22
    I am having problems removing the rear roof rack bar so that I can put my Yakima bars on instead. It looks simple. I lifted the lock down levels, slide the bar all the way to the rear, pressed down on the tabs on the very end of the rails, and tried to slide the bar the rest of the way off. However, once the bar gets 1/2 way over the tab, the tab pops back up and I cannot slide the bar any further.

    Does any one know the right way to get the bar off? If it makes a difference I have a 2000 Expedition.
  • jd_ottawajd_ottawa Posts: 20
    I drove the new Eddie last night and it's definitely an improvement over last year. I'll be purchasing mine next year so I'll have to be patient.

    Fortunately the new 4R75W 5.4 3v (VCT, dual spark plugs, IAFM, ECT with torque based shift, electronic returnless fuel system) will be out (in fall) along with the new 5R100W transmission. New engine is capable of 305 - 325 hp (I hear we will get the 305 which is still an improvement). Torque rated 365-385ft-lbs. New mpg ??

    Enjoy the news.
  • rd330ird330i Posts: 7
    I have a question for the people on this board
    in regards to the 4.6 engine.
    I own a '99 xlt with the 4.6, according to my research this engine horsepower is listed as 240. It states this in the owners manual and in other sources I have looked.

    Is it possible that the '99 4.6L is the most powerful of any of the years?
    My research shows 220hp for 97-98, and 217hp for 2000-2001 and 237hp for 2002-03.
    Can anybody dispute these findings?
  • That data is incorrect, the 1997-1998 ford expedition was at 215HP and not at 220. The 1999 was at 240. The 2000 was at 215. The 2001 was at 215. The 2003 was at 232. Iam not sure about the 2003 because I had to get its info from edmunds. Hope that helps.
Sign In or Register to comment.