GTP Cool Wall: 2000-2005 Ford Excursion

[Tornado]

It's a huge off roader

Nope. It's a medium duty pickup truck with a van rear end and slightly beefed up rear frame (to accommodate the extra weight versus the regular pickup the frame came from). You can't even tell from the outside if one is 4WD, because that's not why the Excursion sits so high.

What's wrong with a well equipped VW minibus to perform the same task just as effectively while using half the fuel?

You mean this:

They sold that here. My uncle owned one. He loved it, and hated trading it in for an Odyssey.



About the only task those could do effectively is break down.

I'm not saying any of that stuff is true, but this is a cool wall, not a good wall; it's all about perceptions and associations rather than quality and facts.

So it's a good thing that I've asked multiple times why it was being called deficient in quality in response to people (including yourself) saying that it was deficient in quality; instead of asking people to repeat tired stereotypes and meaningless rants about engine efficiency.

The maximum weight the Transporter can tow is 2,500 kg and larger Mercedes Benz Sprinter can apparently tow a 3,400 kg trailer. The towing weight of both vehicles is obviously less than the Excursion can tow, but the question is, do you really need to tow anything more than that with a passenger vehicle.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/who-owns-cummins-its-a-shocker.234998/page-5#post-9894590

 

[Doodle]

Cool.

 

[JMoney]

It's an answer, a realistic one at that, and I have no clue where you're getting "anti-American" from, or baseless. This just looks like you've stuck some typical argument-related vocabulary together in the hope of making a point. Would you really say a lifted bro truck loaded to the brim with speakers is tasteful?

No, and I wouldn't want one, either. But claiming anyone with ANY taste in cars wouldn't want such a truck is like a Republican saying anyone that cares at all about the economy would never vote for a Green Party candidate. It's exaggeration, and you make yourself sound biased.

 

[Northstar]

I wish I could change my vote as this gets cooler the longer this goes on.

 

[JMoney]

This is a very strange debate; a lot of people who voted uncool seem to be standing up for it.

 

[Legro]

About the only task those could do effectively is break down.

There must be a massive quality difference between EU one and North American model then.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/who-owns-cummins-its-a-shocker.234998/page-5#post-9894590

The Sprinter's tow weight was from the Mercedes Benz US site. So, I guess this is where you're supposed to insert straw man picture.

 

[Leggy1]

There must be a massive quality difference between EU one and North American model then.

It's probably made in Mexico like other VWs sold in North America.

 

[Sage Ages]

For the sake of clarification, I'm just gonna say this.

It's basically a Ford Super Duty truck with an SUV body. It's designed for carrying/towing people and very large quanities of stuff. It's pretty much meant for commercial use, not that everyone buys it for that.

It's so high because of the frame it uses, suspension bits, yadda yadda yadda, it doesn't go offroad.

Does it do it's job? Yes. Does this mean it's cool? No.


I do realize I'm an idiot for not noticing that Roger was referring how people would interpret the truck and not his/her actual opinion on it.

 

[The Stig Farmer]

This is a baseless, condescending, blatantly Anti-American response to @Gotbeefboy564's question.

You're crazy.

This is a very strange debate; a lot of people who voted uncool seem to be standing up for it.

Not a like wall

 

[Sage Ages]

This is a very strange debate; a lot of people who voted uncool seem to be standing up for it.

That's not strange at all. I don't think it's cool, but I am well aware of what it's supposed to be.

 

[Roger the Horse]

I will admit that most of my judgement about it being bad came from the noticeably large panel gaps in some of the images I was seeing and the fact that the dashboard appears to be from a car almost a decade older than it is.

I'll leave it up to you whether or not that's a fair judgement.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

If foreign vehicles are rated to tow considerably less in the US than in their home market that strikes me as a bit fishy.

 

[Tornado]

The Sprinter's tow weight was from the Mercedes Benz US site.

And where is the Transporter's tow weight on the Volkswagen USA site? I'm having the damndest time finding it.

So, I guess this is where you're supposed to insert straw man picture.

Ah. I link to a post explaining why tow weights between America and Europe can't be taken at face value like people would obviously do when you talk about a vehicle not sold in America, and you accuse me of strawmanning. That's an interesting usage of the term.

 

[Legro]

Ah. I link to a post explaining why tow weights between America and Europe can't be taken at face value like people would obviously do when you talk about a vehicle not sold in America, and you accuse me of strawmanning. That's an interesting usage of the term.

So you ask a question about the towing capacity of Volkswagen van, but apparently no answer is valid unless it's the US figures. If it's only about the difference in towing capacities between different continents, I'd like to point out that here the Excursion can tow only 3,500 kg, because otherwise you'd need a lorry license and it'd simply make no sense after that.

 

[Tornado]

So you ask a question about the towing capacity of Volkswagen van

Nope. I didn't ask for the tow ratings of a Volkwagen van; and I honestly couldn't care less about what the European tow rating is for a European market-only Volkswagen van, for reasons that I explained in the post I linked to.



I'll give you a hand:

This is because, in addition to being much more "fluid" (because manufacturers have changed them year to year along with standard equipment changes to chase higher numbers), American companies place a lot more focus on performance while towing. Because, as already pointed out several times, towing needs and driving habits are different.

 

[Legro]

Nope. I didn't ask for the tow ratings of a Volkwagen van;

You're right it wasn't you, but the post I quoted did. I think it needs to be clarified that you doesn't always mean you in English language. I'm starting to think, I should have used one asks instead, though.

and I honestly couldn't care less about what the European tow rating is for a European market-only Volkswagen van

Why can't you just ignore the post that clearly answers to a question about it then?

 

[Tornado]

Why can't you just ignore the post that clearly answers to a question about it then?

why tow weights between America and Europe can't be taken at face value

This thread has enough people misrepresenting things as it is without people thinking that a European vehicle with a 5 cylinder diesel can do similar things as an American vehicle with a humongous V8 diesel because someone posted towing figures without context.

 

[Blackbird.]

99% of people in Europe.

Nail on the head. End Thread.

 

[Legro]

This thread has enough people misrepresenting things as it is without people thinking that a European vehicle with a 5 cylinder diesel can do similar things as an American vehicle with a humongous V8 diesel because someone posted towing figures without context.

Fair enough.

 

[Conza]

Diesel seems light at only 560lb

Uncool, sorry, nothing in it that makes me go 'wow'. Just another big SUV, and nothing too special about it, other than its weight as far as I can tell.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The maximum weight the Transporter can tow is 2,500 kg and larger Mercedes Benz Sprinter can apparently tow a 3,400 kg trailer. The towing weight of both vehicles is obviously less than the Excursion can tow, but the question is, do you really need to tow anything more than that with a passenger vehicle.

Maybe not where you're from, but here in the U.S. they were mainly used and still are for the purpose of hauling large trailers and less for the family hauling aspect. Why cause it's a vehicle that had various options to do such with and bring your friends along and go to the mountains, or the dunes (which I've seen several times) and bring any ATVs you wanted cause it could easily haul this or your toy hauler and on and on...

Still having to drive around them...is uncool to the fullest.

 

[GT Pro]

They weren't sold here, but they say 'overweight soccer-mom' to me.

 

[JMoney]

Not a like wall

That's exactly my point; normally we have coolness debates on the cool wall.

 

[Joel]

That's exactly my point; normally we have coolness debates on the cool wall.

I don't think a lot of people calling it useless really understood the vehicle's capabilities before this thread. In Europe people don't really do the big family road trips with 6 people while towing a huge boat, so they see a big SUV that has a thirsty engine, doesn't make much power, can't go offroad, and only carries as many passengers as a minivan. A European looks at this and sees a needlessly large and thirsty van, while you and I look at it and see a Ford Super Duty with 3 extra seats and a hatch instead of a bed.

That's why people who voted uncool are "standing up" for the car, because there's a lot of very misinformed discussion about the car being bad rather than about it being uncool. Incidentally, this perception is a big part of why the thing's uncool, it's massive and just looks really excessive in a grocery store parking lot.

 

[ClydeYellow]

This. This needs to be in every page of 'tis thread.

I can see some people may have a need for a huge SUV with plenty of torque. But it doesn't trigger me in any way.

Meh.

 

[Crash]

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.

No, poor engineering is designing something that does not meet the requirements or do the mission that it was supposed to do. When a customer asked for a Toyota, and instead got designed, and charged for, a Ferrari, then that's poor engineering.

Most of the engineers I know coming out of school have such a focus on theoretical design at the expense of manufacturability and cost. They don't think about the fact that the best designed thing in the world is useless if it can't be manufactured, or it would be so expensive to make that no one buys it. The thing is, given an infinite amount of time and an infinite budget, an engineer can always make a design better.

So if each design iteration can get better ad infinitum, at what point do you stop? You stop when you have met the requirements (that have been properly defined from the beginning), not after you've way exceeded the requirements on things that the customer won't pay more money for and the company can't charge anymore for, because then you're just wasting engineering resources, and the company's money.

And in this case, Ford clearly designed and built a vehicle that met the requirements of their target market. Their sustained demand in the used car market, as demonstrated by the relatively high cost of one still, bears that out.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I've made my point and I stand by it.

When you make one that amounts to more than a flurry of insults, feel free to stand beside it.

Could you sum up a lot of the decisions behind the Excursion's creation as "lazy"? Yes. As "smart"? Also yes. It was a calculated move to satisfy a niche, with the least expense necessary. I'm a designer; I recognize a large chunk of my work will be compromised by client needs, or budget concerns, or any other of the myriad influences that will cause the final products to look significantly different from my original visions. That's life.

It's easy to be an idealist. One could call it lazy, even.

No, but It does seem like some Americans are given something similar encouraging them to blindly stand up for whatever car their country produces, regardless of whether it is hideous or not (this isn't an accusation that I'm aiming at you SlipZtrEm, by the way.)

Maybe I'm just cynical, but if I see a crap British car, it doesn't matter that it's made here, I'll still think it's crap. I don't see the same attitude from several American members here when it comes to cars from their own country. Let's be honest, would anyone who voted the Excursion sub zero (all American) or cool have said the same if it had been designed, engineered and built in China?

Maybe I should be envious that I don't have the same sense of national pride. On the other hand, maybe I should just be pleased that I can look at something from a slightly less partisan point of view, and like (or dislike) a car, regardless of what country it was made in.

Oh, I'm right there with you. It helps that I'm in a country that doesn't really produce any cars of its own, of course.

And just how many Excursion owners bought the car with such intentions. It's all well and good saying it's ridiculously giant for a reason, but I'd be willing to bet at least 90% of owners use it for hauling 2 kids and the weekly shopping around.

How many people bought a Cayman R and never drove it past 5/10? How many people buy an M/AMG/RS simply for the badge kudos? Most automobile trips are single-occupancy, so I guess we're all being wasteful...

No, poor engineering is designing something that does not meet the requirements or do the mission that it was supposed to do. When a customer asked for a Toyota, and instead got designed, and charged for, a Ferrari, then that's poor engineering.

Oh, but don't you see, the customer should be happy, because now the product is fully realized.

Most of the engineers I know coming out of school have such a focus on theoretical design at the expense of manufacturability and cost. They don't think about the fact that the best designed thing in the world is useless if it can't be manufactured, or it would be so expensive to make that no one buys it. The thing is, given an infinite amount of time and an infinite budget, an engineer can always make a design better.

So if each design iteration can get better ad infinitum, at what point do you stop? You stop when you have met the requirements (that have been properly defined from the beginning), not after you've way exceeded the requirements on things that the customer won't pay more money for and the company can't charge anymore for, because then you're just wasting engineering resources, and the company's money.

Unexpected find of the week: the best parallel to Gran Turismo's winding development road, in a thread on the Ford Excursion.

And in this case, Ford clearly designed and built a vehicle that met the requirements of their target market. Their sustained demand in the used car market, as demonstrated by the relatively high cost of one still, bears that out.

This. I find the Excursion Seriously Uncool because I can't imagine anybody looking suave getting out of one, even a little, it's not a looker, and practicality is very rarely sexy/cool. But viewed in context, it was fit for purpose. Yes, it was massively wasteful from an emissions perspective, and even when it was new the question of if it was too far was raised, but if you wanted to both tow a boat and haul a family, there weren't a lot of options. Ford knew it was a niche market and the numbers bear that out. This wasn't marketed as an accomplished off-roader, or a sporty crossover. It was a big-ass truck with room for the family, for those people that needed a big-ass truck with room for the family. Criticizing it for being poor at things it was never designed to be good at is like criticizing a Gallardo because it doesn't seat five.

There are a lot of pots in this particular kitchen.

 

[AnthonyD1993]

As practical as this is, its SU because the 5.4 Modular and the 6.0 Powerstroke ("Powerjoke") are both absolute garbage engines. It's hard for a vehicle to be practical when it spends a lot of time in the shop due to a horrible engine.

That being said, the V10 was on my brother in law's short list of vehicles that he was looking for to replace his F-250 (with a 351W) that struggled to pull his 9,000 pound camper. He wound up buying a Chevrolet Suburban 2500 with a 454 big block instead because that was what he could afford.

 

[Zenith]

The V10 Triton? The one that would routinely shoot its own sparkplugs out of the block?

 

[AnthonyD1993]

That one, ironically enough. Then again, from my experience with the Modular family (two 4.6s, 1 5.4), they all love murdering spark plugs. In fact, that spark plug issue lead to me having to watch my grandfather beg my uncle to sell him back his GMC Sierra 2500 with an LQ4 since the 4.6 that was bought as a replacement spent more time either in the shop or as a land ornament.

 

[AlvaroF]

Nope. Fat, ugly, 'soccer-mom' mobile and very much uncool.

Seriouly Uncool.