Expedition Lemons

Just curious about how many people have had so many problems with their Expeditions, they would consider them lemons.

We bought a new 2000 EB two wheel drive with 5.4l engine and towing package. Have never towed with it (wanted the extra torque for mountains and extra tranny and oil cooling for AZ heat.) It has

34,000 miles on it, 80% highway and 20 city.

So far we've had the following replaced under warranty: A/C Compressor Power Steering pump Ball joints Steering shaft Driver's side rear axle seal - Twice! Moon Roof drivetrain - Twice!

A lot of other little problems too, but these all were $500 or more repairs if not under warranty. Funny thing is that when you need to replace the ball joints and steering shaft, the warranty doesn't cover a front end alignment. So I've had to pay about $1,000 out of pocket to cover BS stuff the warranty doesn't but the failures of these parts contributed to.

We've decided that Ford deserves to go out of business due to their poor quality. Owned a new 1985 Merkur XR4Ti and Ford replaced the car at no cost at 10,000 miles because it was in the shop for warranty repairs more than it was driven. The 1986 was fine and we drove it

85,000 miles with few problems.

What's up with the rotten quality of Ford? BTW - am replacing the Expedition with a new 2004 BMW 545 for my wife. I've had nothing but perfect BMWs all of my life.

Reply to
Kevin Brown
Loading thread data ...

I am on my second Expedition. I drove my 1997 4x4 5.4L for 5 years and

147,000 miles. Out of warranty expenses totaled less than $600 dollars (one coil pack, around $300 and one alternator for about the same). The vehicle never left me stranded and was entirely satisfactory except for the two repairs mentioned. I actually think the coil pack failure was related to an improperly reattached heater hose, but I can't prove that. My tires always wore properly, and I got 60,000+ miles out of my first two sets. The third set looked great when I traded the truck on a early build 2003 Expedition. My 2003 is still under warranty (27,000 miles), but I have had it in for three annoyances - 1) was a whistling roof rack, 2) a growling sound when in the 2WD mode, 3) an evaporator that freezes under some very specific conditions. All have been resolved satisfactorily. The 2003 rides better than the 1997, gets better fuel mileage (both were 5.4L 4x4s), and the fold flat rear seat is great. It is a very nice vehicle. Far better than any of the competition I have tried. It's no BMW, but then it doesn't cost like one either. If you put any faith in JD Powers, BMWs aren't that much better than Fords in terms of initial quality (124 vs 136 problems per 100 vehicles) and the long term reliability is only a little better as well (262 vs 287 problems per 100 vehicles over).

Regards,

Ed White

Kev>

Reply to
C. E. White

umm....maybe now would be a good time to point out to you that Expeditions are most definitely not BMWs. if you drive/drove your expedition like you would drive a BMW then you sure as hell are going to have all those problems. a BMW is hardly a "replacement" for a truck--it's more of a lifestyle change because about the only things those two types of vehicles have in common is that they run on gasoline.

you won't find ANY suv that rides like the BMW you want....

john

Reply to
John T. Waisanen

Except for the Porche Cayanne??

Reply to
rakster

Somehow the whole concept of a Porsche SUV seems wacko...but then I can say the same about a MB, BMW, Cadillac, Lincoln, Acura, or Lexus SUV as well. I can't iamgine why anyone would want a $60,000 to $90,000 SUV, at least not for the things I use my SUV for. The Cayanne has less interior space than a 30K Explorer, isn't rated to tow or haul as much (when properly equipped), gets worse gas mileage, only has room for 5 people, and is ugly besides. The reviews all marvel at how well it drives, but then I assume many decent cars costing half as much would kick its butt in an on road performance test. I assume they can't keep them on the lots....... Persoanlly I think this marks the beginning of the end of the SUV craze.

Ed

rakster wrote:

Reply to
C. E. White

I'm not complaining about the Expedition ride - it is a big SUV, and rides like one. I am complaining about the poor quality, and wondering if this Expedition is a statistical freak or not. The Expedition is mainly driven on highway runs to San Diego and Orange County (600 miles round trip) and into AZ mountains on four lane. Ball joints failing at 35,000 miles when never driven off road and mainly driven on highway was the crowning failure that caused me to dump this citrus fruit. We will eventually get another SUV - either a VW Toureg or a Porsche Cayenne. I like the BMW X5, but the rear seat room is too small.

Reply to
Kevin Brown

snipped-for-privacy@rocketmail.com (Kevin Brown) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

The quality at Ford has been in the dumpster for quite some time. The only ones who refuse to recognize this are the boneheads on this newsgroup...

Reply to
Herbie

I guess the reason is because the marketing guys figured it would sell.

I'm not saying anything about the merits of any vehicle but niche market vehicles don't affect the quality bar perceived by the consumer. Companies will factor their offering compared to what is selling, it's easy to see a pattern develop. As more and more complexity is built into vehicles (technology and do-dads), the more that can go wrong. Marketing surveys lead to more features.

The initial quality surveys can be deceiving in that, for example, a minor fabric flaw is weighted the same as a computer or engine failure. Look at the number of the same model on the road. Quantity will always make for lower price. Quantity will dictate that even in high reliabilty, there will be some failures. One just hopes that it won't be the one we buy!

Sometimes, quality drives price, which affects sales, which will often lead to better quality to increase sales, which can lead to cheapen materials which drops quality which leads to poorer sales. Not all decisions made by the thousands of people designing and implementing these features prove to be good in the long run. What seems like a good idea might not work as well in the real world. How the manufacturer handles a systemic issue is the real quality point. Having a group for people to get together to discuss these issues is a help on several fronts.

If one is making a choice of a vehicle by factoring all the requirements, then the beauty of being able to buy what one wants is truely amazing.

Reply to
rakster

"Jim Warman" wrote in news:Z62Ua.29262$ snipped-for-privacy@news0.telusplanet.net:

Jimmy, your feelings of inadequacy are showing through...It is of little consequence that you did not finish high school, many people do not....

you have such a vivid imagination, are you running vehicles and forgetting to exhaust them proplerly?

Reply to
Herbie

Ahh, yes, I had forgotten that, besides your inate ability to cloud facts, you also possess one of the keenest psycho-analytical minds in the free world (heavy on the anal). You should realize by now that I harbour no feelings of inadequacy..... indeed, in spite what you may imagine, I feel pretty damned good about myself and where I am in life and the fact that I am making a good living doing what I love to do.

OTOH, my life is not so bereft that I find it necessary to carry on some strange vendetta, frequenting news groups that hold no other interest for me than the chance to hide behind an internet connection pretending to be the man I wish I were.

That all manufacturers have quality issues is no secret.... Ford doesn't own the corner on them nor the patent. Some of what many feel are quality issues (again, I'm referring to all marques) are actually designed in by the engineers but not because the design is inadequate. For some reason, the human condition has made many of us use unecessary force.... if something wont move, we refuse to see why it wont move until after we apply enough force to break it.

I don't know what it is that drives you, Herb...... but it sounds unhealthy.......

And with that, I will official replonk you and me and my inadequacies can go enjoy life.

-- Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net

Reply to
Jim Warman

Are you raw yet? You still have no life, no hope, and no way out of the trailer park.

Seek help.

Reply to
JonnyCab®

Why are *you* still here then?

While you are, and if you're capable of reading,

formatting link
and

formatting link
Paste the links yourself. I won't bother expanding OE's 76-character e-mail link ignorance, at least not for you.

I guess snapped timing belts and hidden recalls are a true sign of quality, right? Which company is "in the dumpster" now?

Reply to
JonnyCab®

I see Ford NEVER makes this list:

formatting link
Only this list:
formatting link
So much for Ford quality! Low residual because people are dying to dump these unreliable POS trucks.

No computer components were harmed during the creation of this post, however several billion electrons were abused to ensure its safe delivery.

Reply to
Blade
1) Seek help with your multiple-personally posting habits, Herb. You're not fooling anyone.

2) Ford sells over 450,000 Explorers each year, you *idiot*. First, with that many on the road, of *course* they'll have lower residual value. DUH.

3) You're hideously *obsessed* with residual value. If that is so important to you, you shouldn't even put money into a vehicle of any kind. Unless you're a complete *moron*, you'd realize that cars and trucks are not very good investments.

Personally, I don't give a frog's fat arse *what* the residual value is, or what you think.

Edmund's long-term test of the 2002 Explorer found no problems and no complaints. Their same test of a Pilot uncovered a snapped timing belt, hard starting, and indifferent dealer attitudes. End of discussion. You lose.

Seek help.

Reply to
JonnyCab®

Low resale value has many more factors than perceived value. It's well known that the Explorer is the best selling SUV in its class; this means there arer always mor eon the resale lots than other brands. This, all by itself, lower resale values quite a bit; probably more than any other factor. The idea that used Explorers sell poorly because of low quality is shown to be idiocy by the high number of new Explorer sales.

Reply to
bill

snipped-for-privacy@pipping.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

whatever, delude yourself all you want...toyota camry is the best selling car in the us, are its residuals like fords? nope..... blows your theory out of the water....try using your finger to read and then perhaps you will understand.....

who is the fool now billy? people in glass houses billy should not be throwing stones......

Reply to
Herbie

snipped-for-privacy@pipping.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

They sure do, but the quality sucks, like the explorer...do you need me to draw you a picture or perhaps your wife can explain it to you.....

Reply to
Herbie

You're the only one throwing stones. You're so inadequate that you don't even jnow what you're doing. That advice to get help was good advice, but you won't take it. Those who need help the most seldom realize it.

Reply to
bill

They still sell. Something you don't seem to understand at all.

Nicely ignored.

Reply to
bill

snipped-for-privacy@pipping.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

actually it was fully refuted with the camry example....use your finger and mouth the words..."bested by herbie"

Reply to
Herbie

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.