When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
IN A NUTSHELL: Massive, controversial, under-engineered, and was IMO arguably the worst-driving SUV I have ever experienced.
Ever since the truck-based Chevrolet Suburban was introduced in 1936, it has had a steady and loyal following that has only increased over time…and still remains quite popular today, even in an era of increasing gas prices. Ford, of course, has had its own successes with truck-based SUVS, such as the Bronco, Explorer, and Expedition, but, nevertheless, the Suburban’s continuing success, over decades, was not lost to Ford marketers. So, in the late 1990s, a plan was devised to one-up even the massive Suburban and Ford’s own shorter-wheelbase Expedition. The long-wheelbase Expedition EL, which was roughly the same size as the Suburban, was not introduced until 2007. The all-new SUV for 2000, to be called the Excursion, was derived from Ford’s Super-Duty F-250/350 platform, which is substantially larger and beefier than the standard F-150 truck-platform that went into the Expedition. The result was a vehicle that was truly massive by modern standards, although its length was actually not as long as the big full-size luxury American cars of the 60s and early 70s. But it was ultra-wide, bulky, and heavy in weight…and I do mean HEAVY. Curb weight, empty (without people on board), was 7230 lbs. for the gasoline version and 7688 lbs. for the turbodiesel……in contrast, Suburbans typically weighed between 5500 and 6200 lbs. empty. So, add a full load of cargo and 9 passengers (in the top trim version)…and you are talking an almost unimaginable amount of weight for a family-SUV (as opposed to a commercial truck). Depending on version, it could also tow from 6600 to 11,000 lbs. And, again by contrast, the even longer full-size American cars I sampled in the 60s and early 70s weighed from around 4800 lbs. to 5300 lbs. The Chrysler Imperials were the longest, the Lincoln Continentals were the heaviest, with most of the standard non-limo Cadillacs somewhere in between.
So, needless to say, the Rock-of-Gibraltar-weight Excursion was not exactly an econobox in the fuel-use department…..it almost never saw a gas station it didn’t like. And, again not surprisingly, the Excursion quickly became the media Poster-Child for the growing Anti-SUV movement among environmentalists. This Car-Chat forum generally discourages politics, so I won’t get into that subject too deeply, but, in the interest of historical accuracy and being factual for this write-up, I think it is necessary to say that these environmental groups waged a constant PR campaign against the Excursion for several years. It was portrayed as the ultimate gas-guzzler (Some truth to that), the ultimate emissions-polluter (Not much truth in that, considering that it had the latest state-of-the-art emissions hardware), and a virtual battering-ram in an accident that would crush small vehicles like cardboard (yes, also some truth to that).
When I test-drove an Excursion, I also found what was IMO another big fault, which I’ll get to in a minute, which was partly, but not completely, related to its size and weight. I never had any personal interest in owning or leasing an Excursion, as it was much too large and bulky for my driving needs. But, after reading this constant barrage of Anti-Excursion ads and articles in the media and Internet, I figured I might as well pop on down to the Ford shop and sample this gargantuan for myself. At Tyson’s Ford in suburban Virginia near D.C. (it closed down a number of years ago), they had a couple in stock, so they went and got a key and a dealer-plate for me. As I recall, from the low-range clattering the engine made, it was the 7688-lbs. turbodiesel version. By then, diesel-technology had gotten to the point where starting up a diesel had little difference from a gas engine….gone were the long wait-times for the glow plugs to heat up, the marble-can idle when cold, and black soot out the tailpipe.
Putting it into gear (5-speed automatic (on the diesel version…..4-speed for the gas engines) and driving off, as aforementioned, it was not quite as long as the big American luxury cars I remembered from 30 years previous, but had enormous bulk, and was (facetiously) as wide as a cruise-ship. The turbodiesel produced a little bit of clatter, but not like the unrefined diesels of earlier periods. The design needed further improvement underneath..…..the steering-gear seemed adequate for something this size, but the suspension and chassis-underpinnings, IMO at least, were clearly not up to this kind of weight. I don’t know why the engineers allowed this…perhaps in the conversion to an SUV, they tried to make it a little more civil for passengers riding inside, as the equivalent Ford F-250/350 trucks the design was taken from were notorious for a kidney-pounding ride. But, from my experience at least, the result was a suspension that allowed the vehicle to bounce up and down over bumps and road-irregularities (even with the long wheelbase). Shocks from the bumps, even with the revised suspension, could be heard as thumps, would jiggle the steering wheel, and sometimes cause the vehicle to dart slightly from side to side and require small steering-corrections. Slowing down and coming to a stop at traffic lights and stop-signs, the suspension couldn’t adequately support the heavy front end…just as you stopped, it would slowly bob up and down like a purpose a couple of times. You could watch and feel the bobbing over the hood from the driver’s seat.
So, again needless to say, I was VERY careful with this vehicle, did not push it in corners, made sure I didn’t have to brake hard, and more or less babied it back to the dealership. I didn’t want to end to end up in a ditch or off the road somewhere from overtaxing the (IMO) inadequate chassis-components. I can say with confidence that it was (arguably) the worst-driving SUV I have experienced to this day. I say “arguably” because the 90s-vintage body-on-frame Chevy Tracker/Suzuki Sidekick 2-door fabric drop-top SUVs I sampled also had design and roadability problems…they shimmied and wobbled like a wet dog, even on a smooth road.
After several years, the constant media-blitz against the Excursion eventually won out with the public, sales dropped, and Ford had little choice but to discontinue it, although I also suspect that sales also dropped because of its somewhat scary road-manners. A few years later, in 2007, the long-wheelbase Expedition EL was introduced, had FAR better comfort/stability and road-manners than the Excursion, and IMO was a much better competitor to the always-hot-selling Chevy Suburban. The extended-wheelbase Expedition has been successful, and remains in production to this day.
And, as Always, Happy-Vehicle-Memories.
MM
Last edited by mmarshall; Aug 13, 2023 at 08:48 PM.
Man I hate working on these, I've done many an oil pan (have to remove engine/really play with it) and turbos on the 7.3/6.0 versions.
Extremely large and heavy, eats up basically al the space in the shop main bay when on the lift. Engines require the heavy crane, parts are expensive and heavy, but customers who own them LOVE them and consider them irreplaceable so are more than happy to fork over 1000s upon 1000s to keep them running. I service two 7.3s and one 6.0
customers who own them LOVE them and consider them irreplaceable
I can understand some of that affection if they want a monster to tow or haul things, but, in my experience at least, the road-manners are squirrely and sometimes downright scary. The suspension/underpinnings basically give you an unstable ride.
We had two of these in the family, one a 4x2 and the other a 4x4 diesel. I drove both when I had my learner's permit before they were both sold. The 4x4 drove significantly worse due to the factory suspension lift over the 4x2 and front live axle. The twin I-beam suspension in the 4x2, while still not ideal, felt far easier to control in day to day situations. It's funny you found it so unstable as my aunts, both under 5'5, were the primary drivers of these Excursions and they would hustle those things through the country roads on road trips. The 4x4's suspension movements really calmed down when it was towing, for what its worth.
Originally Posted by mmarshall
I don't know where you got this picture, but that's not a stock Excursion. That is some sort of conversion of a Super Duty truck with an Excursion body. It even has a later Super Duty interior as can be seen through the window.
We had two of these in the family, one a 4x2 and the other a 4x4 diesel. I drove both when I had my learner's permit before they were both sold. The 4x4 drove significantly worse due to the factory suspension lift over the 4x2 and front live axle.
Yeah.....the one I sampled had a tendency to bound and skip a little sideways sometimes over bumps. The live axles, although tough and durable for towing/hauling, don't help much with road-manners.
The twin I-beam suspension in the 4x2, while still not ideal, felt far easier to control in day to day situations. It's funny you found it so unstable as my aunts, both under 5'5, were the primary drivers of these Excursions and they would hustle those things through the country roads on road trips. The 4x4's suspension movements really calmed down when it was towing, for what it's worth.
Can't necessarily figure out everything from just one test-drive, but I think a big part of the problem was that this truck is simply too heavy for the underpinnings they gave it. If they used the same suspensions they did on the F-350 Super Duty it is based on, it would probably pound one's kidneys too much for a family SUV.
I've ridden in an F-350, with normal recommended tire-pressures, and it is ROUGH. Our condo-maintenance firm has several of them.
I don't know where you got this picture, but that's not a stock Excursion. That is some sort of conversion of a Super Duty truck with an Excursion body. It even has a later Super Duty interior as can be seen through the window.
It was a Google-image. I did not have a cell-phone or camera for the particular one I test-drove back in the early 2000s.
Last edited by mmarshall; Aug 14, 2023 at 09:11 AM.
Can't necessarily figure out everything from just one test-drive, but I think a big part of the problem was that this truck is simply too heavy for the underpinnings they gave it. If they used the same suspensions they did on the F-350 Super Duty it is based on, it would probably pound one's kidneys too much for a family SUV.
I've ridden in an F-350, with normal recommended tire-pressures, and it is ROUGH. Our condo-maintenance firm has several of them.
They have the same suspension as a F250 Super Duty.
but i did find some giant cars from that era that were longer than the excursion, obviously one upping one another... with this one taking the cake... (almost 20 feet long) - no doubt matching the ego of the cigar chomping person who drove them.
but i did find some giant cars from that era that were longer than the excursion, obviously one upping one another... with this one taking the cake... (almost 20 feet long) - no doubt matching the ego of the cigar chomping person who drove them.
Yes....if you noticed it, I said in the write-up that the imperial was the longest of the three luxury cars, the Lincoln Continental the heaviest, and the Caddys somewhere in between.
Even so, the Contis of that period were still only about 2/3 the weight of a typical Excursion.
that covered gigantic spare tire INSIDE the cargo area is emblematic of the idiocy of that vehicle.
Well, Two things. First, it shows you how big that cargo area is....most vehicles would not have enough room inside to cary a spare tire that big. Second, at least it's a REAL spare tire/wheel assembly...not the usual temporary spare/donut, run-flat, compressed-air-bottles, or the other things we see nowadays. A vehicle this heavy demands something that will support that kind of weight....up to four tons+ with a load.
The Expedition and Expedition EL were both MAJOR improvements in road-manners. No comparison.
It was actually my ex's dad's truck and they never drove it so I used it all the time for trips and stuff and was really hoping they would give it to me but they didn't. Lol
I thought the Excursion would be similar and nicer driving but from what ya'll say- maybe not so much.
These actually drive quite well when loaded, which is why the people who love them, love them. The last person I knew who owned one (the diesel) used it to travel cross-country with his friends to motorcycle races. They could put 5 or 6 people and all of their crap inside, and tow a huge trailer (I think it was a 40') containing 8-12 bikes and a full shop. It only got like 7mpg on those trips, but was still way cheaper and easier than everyone driving themselves.
MM Retro-Write-Up: 2000-2005 Ford Excursion
