I’m personally not a big fan of large SUVs. They use massive amounts of gasoline—mileage is generally in the low teens—and owing to their nearly three-ton weight and high bumpers constitute a danger to anyone in a smaller vehicle, especially if that vehicle is a lower-riding car or minivan. Yet even I am not entirely immune to their appeal. There is something fascinating about vehicles so large, probably the same thing that is fascinating about large beasts such as elephants and hippos, and large anything for that matter. Size is impressive to the animal brain.

Recently I had a coupon for a free oil change at a Ford dealer. It was supposed to be a “fast lube,” but with nine cars in line ahead of me it was not. So I took the opportunity to indulge my revulsion-fascination complex with large SUVs by taking a 2003 Expedition for a test drive.

My motivations were a bit more sophisticated than I have let on. I knew that Ford had substantially revised the Expedition for 2003. The revised styling follows the path set by the 2002 Explorer, with the largest change being a less round and more massive-looking front end. Most intriguing to me, steering changed from recirculating ball to rack-and-pinion and the live rear axle was tossed in favor of an independent rear suspension to improve handling. (Handling more than any other area affects my satisfaction with a vehicle.) As in the 2002 Explorer, the new rear suspension permitted a much lower load floor, promising a larger rear seat.

There’s also some history here. GM used to own the large SUV market. Then Ford finally got around to introducing its own full-size four door SUV in 1997, and that first Expedition was instantly a success. GM responded with its own substantially redesigned large SUVs in 2000, and they’ve regained some of the lost ground. This intense competition for high margin sales (large SUVs command much higher prices than mid-sized SUVs, but do not cost that much more to produce) explains why Ford so substantially revised the Expedition for 2003.

Ford Expedition Reliability

Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Ford Expedition rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. From these you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.7 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision.

To gain access to this information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.

Styling

As with the 2002 Explorer (click for my review), I like the new styling much better than the old. The rounder front fenders of the first generation Expedition, as successful as they were at adapting Ford’s aero look to a truck, were just a bit too pretty for a truck. The new styling makes the vehicle look stronger and more up-to-date (rounded forms are on their way “out,” without resorting to an overly macho theme (i.e. the Avalanche).

Some people complain that the Explorer and Expedition look too much alike. I don’t have a problem with this personally. The point of styling is not to entertain auto journalists or third-parties. The point is to give owners the “look” they want. If they want the “Ford SUV look,” and the Explorer is large enough inside, then that’s the way to go. If they want this look, but need a larger SUV, then that’s what the Expedition is for. No one complains that Cheerios uses the same graphics on the 15oz and the 22oz box, right? And if every different size cereal box had a different look, wouldn’t this lead to even more confusion in the cereal aisle? By similarly styling and naming its SUVs, Ford presents a clearer image and simplifies customers’ decision making. Finally, wouldn’t it be worse if they looked different, and people who only needed a mid-sized SUV but really liked the look of the big one were thus forced to buy more gas-guzzling truck than they need? So I have no problem with Ford SUVs looking alike.

Inside the Expedition has also been de-rounded. The round forms of the old dash are gone, replaced by a more conventional arrangement. The most prominent features of the new dash are a large swath of black plastic across the driver’s side and Audiesque rotating metallic finish rings that adjust the volume flowing through the vents. To my eye, the latter are much more aesthetically successful than the former. I’m not sure what all of this black plastic is for. Minimizing glare, based on the Mercedes line of thinking? The Lincoln version isn’t similarly blessed, so even if this is the line of reasoning Ford can’t be too committed to it. Overall, I find the interior restyle less successful.

Ford claims that the new truck’s interior materials are an improvement, with VW as the benchmark. They are an improvement—this is a nicer interior than that of the new Explorer—but VW is still a ways off. There’s still a large amount of hard plastic to be found here.

Accommodations

Hopefully, people who buy an Expedition do so for reasons beyond an infatuation with size. To whit, hopefully they need to carry a large amount of people and/or stuff over nasty roads, or even off-road. Let’s cover the capacity issue first.

The Expedition is a big vehicle in all dimensions, length, wide, and height. This permits a large interior, even after allowing for generous ground clearance. Now, just about any car claims to fit three adults in the back seat. However, few have enough shoulder room to fit three comfortably (i.e. shoulders not crammed into each other, middle person not sitting on a high, hard lump, etc.). No problem here. All three rows have enough shoulder room for three adults to fit with little or no touching. A split bench is standard on the first two trim levels up front, so an Expedition can be configured to carry nine people.

The upper trim lines, including the top-of-the-line Eddie Bauer I drove, are fitted with buckets and a center console. I found the driver’s seat fairly comfortable, especially after I deflated the lumbar support (an earlier driver had pumped it all the way up). I found the driving position much better than that in the current Explorer. In the Explorer, the windshield header and sun visors intruded on my vision. It was like a billed hat I couldn’t take off. In the Expedition, I sat well above the dash, affording an excellent view out all around, yet the top of my vision was also unblocked. Much, much better. No improvements possible here. Huge mirrors were also much appreciated.

Many cars these days do not provide enough interior storage. No problem with the Expedition I drove. The center console (which reduces seating capacity to eight) has a HUGE storage compartment in it. A small dog could be stored in there or, more likely, a laptop computer and/or good-sized purse. This compartment was topped by a padded leather armrest. Also nice. Smaller storage areas are scattered throughout the interior.

The Eddie Bauer Expedition I drove had the “climate control” seats. These include not only heating, but also air conditioning, each with five strength settings. I set the seat A/C to ׃,” but never noticed a difference. I would suggest saving $625 by forgoing this option, except it’s the only way to get heated seats, and these can be very nice to have on cold mornings with leather. You’re call, just know the seat A/C isn’t worth much.

In the second row, the truck I drove had a bench split in three pieces. The middle piece can be slid forward, to position it closer to the front row (something parents with small children might like). Two captains chairs separated by a center console with a large storage compartment (as in the Lincoln Navigator) are a $795 option. Be aware that while the seats fold the console will not, so with all seats folded it sticks up a few inches above the otherwise nearly flat load floor.

Second row seat comfort is pretty good, definitely better than that in most smaller SUVs and minivans. The seat cushion is nearly high enough to provide good thigh support. The cushion is padded and contoured enough so you don’t feel you’re sitting on a board. To get to the third row, either outboard section of the second row tilts forward in two fairly easy steps. (Not quite easy enough for children to manage, which might not be a bad thing.)

The real surprise is in the third row. Ford’s main reason for eating the approximately $200 additional cost of an independent rear suspension was to avoid packaging a center differential with 10” or so of travel. This permitted the floor to be lowered nine inches, a huge amount. This lower floor permits two things.

First, it permits a surprisingly roomy third seat. Now, many vehicles these days offer a third-row seat, including many minivans and an increasing number of SUVs. I’ve sat in many of these third row seats. I didn’t sit in them any longer than I had to, though. They tend to be uncomfortable, and they tend to be mounted so close to the floor that my knees are at chest level. I don’t like sitting like this. In the Expedition, in contrast, the seat cushion is generously sized and padded and is mounted high enough above the lower floor that I had plenty of thigh support, move even than in the second row. Overall, I found the third row seat to be the most comfortable in the vehicle, more comfortable than the second seats in most alternatives are far ahead of any third row seat I’ve sampled. Among SUVs, only the even larger Suburban comes close. Quite an achievement.

The lower floor also permits this large, comfortable seat to fold completely into it, leaving a flat load surface behind. Ford faced a choice here. They could have used the lower floor to expand cargo volume by making the seats removable, as before. They elected instead to keep cargo volume constant—and thus substantially less than a minivan's—and eliminate the need to remove any seats, ever. I suspect the great majority of buyers will favor this decision, as removing and storing seats tends to be quite inconvenient. For maximum cargo volume, though, a minivan remains a better choice, as the reduced ground clearance and removable seats permit a taller cargo area.

My test vehicle had the $455 power folding third row option. Worth the $455? Probably not to me, but I’d suggest personally evaluating the effort involved in the non-power version.

On the Road

The revisions for 2003 have added a few hundred pounds to an already hefty vehicle. So even with the 260-horsepower 5.4-liter V8 acceleration is just adequate with a moderate load. By this I mean it felt neither underpowered nor equipped with power to spare. It moved as quickly as I wanted to, which admittedly is not too quickly, this being a large vehicle. (The Toyota Sequoia is about equally powerful; the GM SUVs have an edge here.) Towing a heavy load and/or carrying a full load of passengers might lead some people to desire more power, but as I did neither I cannot say. I can say that even when pushed the engine sounded quieter and more sophisticated than past Expeditions and competing GM products. With the accelerator floored, the transmission shifted well short of the redline, at about 5500 RPM, perhaps because going above that level on an engine with a low power peak makes no sense.

Handling was another pleasant surprise. The steering and brake efforts were nicely firm where they used to be overly light. Roll in turns is moderate. Unlike past Expeditions, I no longer felt I was driving a boat. Not a sports car, either, but I generally felt the new Expedition could be handled with adequate precision and, perhaps most important, a sense of control. Overall, its handling felt similar to that of the Toyota Sequoia.

Sadly, the ride is not quite up to the almost Lexus-like Sequoia’s or even the Tahoe's. Over some surfaces the generally composed if not quite luxurious ride felt a bit jittery (though never uncomfortably rough). Still, I never felt the degree of body-on-frame shimmer that turned me off the current Explorer. Overall, ride qualoty is adequate, but I expect better.

The interior is fairly quiet, even at highway speeds, with one qualification. Whenever the A/C was on, at any setting, a loud blower stayed on at the rear of the vehicle. I tried and failed to find a way to cut this blower off without turning the A/C completely off. I think this blower recirculates air, pulling it through a vent at the very back, but even turning off “recirc” didn’t kill it. There has got to be a better way. On the positive side, the climate control system appears well up to handle the task of heating and cooling all three rows of this large vehicle.

Pricing

For quick, up-to-date new car pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.

The moderately-loaded Eddie Bauer Expedition I drove carried a sticker of $45,190. Yes, quite shocking. But corrective actions are possible. The new “safety canopy” (airbag to protect the first and second rows in a rollover) and “AdvanceTrac” (stability control) are impressive safety features, but together add nearly $1,400 to the sticker. I’ve already mentioned the climate controlled seat and power folding seat options, another $1,080. Not yet mentioned is the nicely-sized but $800 moonroof. Yet more can be saved by going with the XLT trim, where the luxury of leather is still available. Equip an XLT to Honda Pilot EX levels, and the sticker drops under forty. Still nine grand over the smaller but in some ways nicer Honda, but more help is on the way. The Honda sells at or above sticker, while according to Edmunds Ford dealers typically accept four grand under sticker. Add in Ford’s current $2,500 rebate, and the likely transaction price for a still well-equipped Expedition comes to just over $33,000. Suddenly the price seems quite reasonable, doesn’t it? Even further reductions are possible by doing without leather, front buckets, and so on.

GM's full-size SUVs, such as the GMC Yukon, tend to cost a bit more than the Expedition. For reasons discussed in my review of the Yukon, I prefer the Ford.

The Toyota Sequoia costs much more than the Ford or GM SUVs, even though dealers are finally discounting them. The big Toy is more refined, but low on power and not as roomy. I prefer the Ford.

Last Words

Generally I’d still recommend a smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle, but if you need to carry seven or more adults comfortably, there are few other choices, and those aren’t much more efficient. For many uses, a minivan will do as well or better, but off-road and/or travel over uneven or unplowed snow-covered roads can justify the space-robbing, weight-adding ground clearance of the Expedition. With these qualifications, I can recommend this vehicle. With the changes for 2003, the seating comfort, interior versatility, and handling feel now exceed the closest competition. Acceleration, some areas of handling, and ride quality still lag, but among large SUVs this is now my favorite.

Update November 2003:
This fall Nissan has entered the large SUV arena with its Pathfinder Armada and Dodge has introduced a new, singificantly larger Durango. After driving both my preference for the Expedition remains, though the Dodge is a close second. The new Durango is much quicker than the Expedition, feels more maneuverable, rides better, and costs less. Its disadvantages include a less comfortable third row, less shoulder room, and a cheap-looking interior. The Nissan is also much quicker than the Ford, but its chassis feels very trucky and its interior quality is abysmal for a $40,000 vehicle.

I've noticed that Expeditions' front wheels are often thickly coated with black brake dust. They appear to have a problem in this area. If you must always have a clean-looking car, plan on washing this one's wheels often.

To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, or to perform thorough up-to-date new car price comparisons, visit www.truedelta.com. A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.

My reviews of related vehicles:
GMC Yukon (equivalent to Chevrolet Tahoe)
Nissan Pathfinder Armada
Toyota Sequoia

Amount Paid (US$): 45,190
Model Year: 2003
Model and Options: Eddie Bauer 4x4 5.4 many options