GTP Cool Wall: 2000-2005 Ford Excursion

2000-2005 Ford Excursion

  • Total voters
    135
  • Poll closed .
GranTurismo916

GranTurismo916

15,465
United States
Orange County, NY
GTP_GT916
Nii916
2000-2005 Ford Excursion nominated by @Doog
2004_ford_excursion-pic-43271.jpeg


Engines: 5.4L V8 (Triton), 6.8L V10 (Triton), 7.3L Turbodiesel V8 (Navistar T444E), 6.0L Turbodiesel V8 (Navistar VT365)
Power: 5.4 Triton: 255 hp; 6.8 Triton: 310 hp; T444E: 250 hp; VT365: 325 hp
Torque: 5.4 Triton: 350 lb-ft.; 6.8 Triton: 425 lb-ft.; T444E: 250 hp; VT365: 560 lb-ft.
Weight: Gas: 3280 kg; Diesel: 560 lb-ft.
Transmission: 4-speed automatic, 5-speed automatic
Drivetrain: Front engine, rear wheel drive; front engine, four wheel drive
Body Styles: 4-door SUV
Additional Info: "During its production, it was the largest and heaviest SUV sold in North America."​
2000-04_Ford_Excursion.jpg

Blue_excursion.jpg

2000-ford-excursion.jpg

2000-2005-ford-excursion-rear-view.jpg

2001-ford-excursion-rear-interior.jpg

View attachment 303703
 
Welcome to the American giant SUV. Where huge space is coupled with huge fuel costs and huge weight. Of course, for long trips along the American highway it's excellent, no doubt about that. But if you ever attempted to get one of this around a tight European road (or at least tight for the Excursion), you would not have fun doing so.

I do dig the (fake?) wood inserts in the interior. Uncool.
 
The size, the power, the rampant waste, I love these things. It'll burn up a tank of gas just backing out of the driveway.

Even the 6.0 isn't that bad, I know some who have them in trucks, they are ok engines after repairs/updated parts.

Sub Zero.
 
Why are people saying that the 6.0 is a bad engine? I don't know anything about the engines in this abomination, but I do know that the 6.0 is the only one that actually makes realistic power figures. The rest, and I'm sorry to bring up bhp/litre, but the rest of the engines are clearly the product of atrocious engineering.
 
Uncool - Just a big thirsty V8 SUV with no apparent redeeming features. I mean come on! How can you only get 310HP from a 6.8 V10!
 
Beeblebrox237
Why are people saying that the 6.0 is a bad engine? I don't know anything about the engines in this abomination, but I do know that the 6.0 is the only one that actually makes realistic power figures. The rest, and I'm sorry to bring up bhp/litre, but the rest of the engines are clearly the product of atrocious engineering.
Click to expand...

The 6.0 is regarded as one of the least reliable diesel engines ever created, it caused Ford to sue Navistar and develop their own diesel engine in house. The engine can be made reliable, but you'll have to spend thousands of dollars in parts and thousands more if you're not able to install those parts yourself.

The 7.3 isn't a product of "atrocious engineering," it is one of the best engines Ford has ever put in a truck, in my opinion. There is far more to an engine than just hp/liter. The other engines I couldn't care less about, I can't see why anyone would buy something like this and not spring for the diesel.
 
Rode in my uncles Excursion when my family took a trip out to California. I loved it but was too young to drive it.
 
Great if you want to haul a family from Connecticut to Oregon. Absolutely 🤬 if you want to get from Geneva to Genova and to be able to stop there.
 
peobryant
The 6.0 is regarded as one of the least reliable diesel engines ever created, it caused Ford to sue Navistar and develop their own diesel engine in house. The engine can be made reliable, but you'll have to spend thousands of dollars in parts and thousands more if you're not able to install those parts yourself.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty good reason, thanks for the very lucid explanation.
peobryant
The 7.3 isn't a product of "atrocious engineering," it is one of the best engines Ford has ever put in a truck, in my opinion. There is far more to an engine than just hp/liter. The other engines I couldn't care less about, I can't see why anyone would buy something like this and not spring for the diesel.
Click to expand...
Thing is, though, it is lazy engineering to go for displacement rather than intelligence, and that is poor engineering. I know other students like that, people who would go for displacement because it's easy. And their work is bad. It's a lower standard. And that's how I view these engines. Ford made a good set of engines for this car, yes. But not great. They had a choice. They could have designed an engine that made a lot of torque and a lot of power without revving massively high or sacrificing reliability. I have no doubt that they could have made an engine that displaced less than 5 litres which delivered better performance and fuel economy without sacrificing reliability. It would cost more to develop, yes, and it would cost consumers more to buy, yes, but after owning it for a certain period of time they would see the money back. And who knows, maybe if these had some modicum of efficiency, you might still see them on the road. As it is even in America these are too big and inefficient.

I normally don't make a big deal out of specific output since most of those cars were built when the big three were short on funds and were dealing with rapidly changing regulations when consumers still wanted big cars, so there was plenty of stupidity from everyone. But this, this was introduced in the year 2000. This is a modern car. It shouldn't have specs from the 1970s.
 
Isn't this basically one of the F series pick up trucks with a body stuck on top?

Completely and utterly SU.

Oh, and the 6.0l diesel makes 325bhp/560lb ft... BMW's top diesel makes 376bhp/550lb ft in twin turbo form... from half the capacity :lol:
 
Beeblebrox237
That's a pretty good reason, thanks for the very lucid explanation.

Thing is, though, it is lazy engineering to go for displacement rather than intelligence, and that is poor engineering. I know other students like that, people who would go for displacement because it's easy. And their work is bad. It's a lower standard. And that's how I view these engines. Ford made a good set of engines for this car, yes. But not great. They had a choice. They could have designed an engine that made a lot of torque and a lot of power without revving massively high or sacrificing reliability. I have no doubt that they could have made an engine that displaced less than 5 litres which delivered better performance and fuel economy without sacrificing reliability. It would cost more to develop, yes, and it would cost consumers more to buy, yes, but after owning it for a certain period of time they would see the money back. And who knows, maybe if these had some modicum of efficiency, you might still see them on the road. As it is even in America these are too big and inefficient.

I normally don't make a big deal out of specific output since most of those cars were built when the big three were short on funds and were dealing with rapidly changing regulations when consumers still wanted big cars, so there was plenty of stupidity from everyone. But this, this was introduced in the year 2000. This is a modern car. It shouldn't have specs from the 1970s.
Click to expand...

Stotty
Isn't this basically one of the F series pick up trucks with a body stuck on top?

Completely and utterly SU.

Oh, and the 6.0l diesel makes 325bhp/560lb ft... BMW's top diesel makes 376bhp/550lb ft in twin turbo form... from half the capacity :lol:
Click to expand...

The Cummins ISX is a 15 liter engine that produces between 400-600hp and 1450-2000 ft/lb of torque. Would you consider that lazy or atrocious engineering? Diesel engines for cars and trucks are two entirely different animals, comparing the two is silly.
 
peobryant
The Cummins ISX is a 13 liter engine that produces between 400-600hp and 1450-2000 ft/lb of torque. Would you consider that lazy or atrocious engineering? Diesel engines for cars and trucks are two entirely different animals, comparing the two is silly.
Click to expand...

The BMW 3.0l D is the engine fitted to the X5/6... so works perfectly well in 'a truck'.

The Cummins engine is different... that's a commercial engine built to produce torque.
 
peobryant
The Cummins ISX is a 15 liter engine that produces between 400-600hp and 1450-2000 ft/lb of torque. Would you consider that lazy or atrocious engineering? Diesel engines for cars and trucks are two entirely different animals, comparing the two is silly.
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn't, and I'll tell you why. Large diesel engines like that one are about torque, and I'd say that those torque figures are pretty good for that size of engine. As the size of engine goes up, so do mechanical losses.

And both cars and trucks use diesel engines in exactly the same way: to make them move forward. They're very similar and comparing the two makes perfect sense, because the technology is exactly the same. Torque is torque. Power is power. Putting it in a truck instead of a car doesn't change that.
 
Stotty
The BMW 3.0l D is the engine fitted to the X5/6... so works perfectly well in 'a truck'.

The Cummins engine is different... that's a commercial engine built to produce torque.
Click to expand...

And I'd say the engines Ford, GM and Dodge offer in their trucks are supposed to be more like the engines found in a semi rather than a car. A lot of displacement for a lot of torque so the engine isn't overworked which (hopefully) means hundreds of thousands of miles of reliable service.

Beeblebrox237
No, I wouldn't, and I'll tell you why. Large diesel engines like that one are about torque, and I'd say that those torque figures are pretty good for that size of engine. As the size of engine goes up, so do mechanical losses.

And both cars and trucks use diesel engines in exactly the same way: to make them move forward. They're very similar and comparing the two makes perfect sense, because the technology is exactly the same. Torque is torque. Power is power. Putting it in a truck instead of a car doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

A diesel engine in a truck is far more likely to be worked hard than one found in a car. There is a reason, just like with Semi trucks, that Cummins, Ford and Isuzu have relatively high displacements for the diesel engines found in the big three pickup trucks. They are meant to be reliable torque machines that will stand up to abuse for hundreds of thousands of miles. Is it possible to make a smaller displacement engine have that power? Absolutely, but I don't think it'd stand up to the same amount of abuse as a higher displacement engine because it would be working harder to produce the same result.
 
Last edited:
A fat, thirsty pig that is great for highway cruising until you get into the city.

Once in the city, your in deep.🤬 everywhere.

Uncool.
 
Now I like my Fords. I also like my American Fords.

But this.

Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick this is uncool. I understand the need for the huge engines in the trucks to haul big trailers etc but to put it in an SUV just to ferry kids around? No. Just no.
 
This and the Hummer H2 are two prime examples of American excess in the current century. The Excursion comes from a time when it was more cost-effective for the big three to pour their money and effort into producing large trucks and lobbying to keep them around than it was to make cars that were competitive with Japanese offerings. I suppose you could say it was hubris: that of its producers and of its consumers. The domestic makes were more than happy to continue producing huge (even by our standards), wasteful vehicles rather than investing in a more financially sustainable product lineup. Buyers of Excursions and other large SUVs were sometimes able to do so on tax-writeoffs, and as much as I hate to confirm it, most were exclusively used for child-shuttling duties. The Excursion was discontinued after only a single generation, seeing as everyone who wanted one had gotten one. $4/gallon gas and the decline of the economy in 2008 effectively ended this chapter in recent history.

I voted cool, because I always vote large SUVs cool.
 

Latest Posts

Back