1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

But there are only 32 cubes of cargo space with the rear-most row folded flat, versus 43 in the Ford. That’s largely a result of the higher load floor necessary to clear the Chevy’s solid rear axle.

Expedition’s independent rear suspension... permits a lower cargo floor that’s much easier to load with gear.

Again: a mere 1.3" difference. Is that all due to IRS, or do rims/tires/frame also contribute here? 1.3-in does not equate to "much easier" in my book, it's negligible. 4 inches or more; now you have an appreciable difference.

And that 11 CF is NOT 'largely the result of the lower floor'- 1 cubic foot is 1728 cubic inches.

Edited April 21, 20178 yr by balthazar

7 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Again: a mere 1.3" difference. Is that all due to IRS, or do rims/tires/frame also contribute here? 1.3-in does not equate to "much easier" in my book, it's negligible. 4 inches or more; now you have an appreciable difference.

And that 11 CF is NOT 'largely the result of the lower floor'- 1 cubic foot is 1728 cubic inches.

Tire/wheel combo of the tested vehicles is 0.19 inches apart with the Expedition being the taller of the two.

If you're using the vehicle as intended and using the rear section an inch+ isn't significant but it's not negligible. There are plenty of women who drive these who likely aren't as tall as men and that inch+ means more to them. Heck, they don't even have to be the driver to use the back daily. Would you prefer yours to be 1.3 inches taller? Or if all things were equal you'd likely choose the one that was easier to load.

What does the 1CF = 1728CI have to do with anything? There's a good amount difference in rear passenger and cargo capacity between the two and every comparison mentions it.

Everything else being equal that 1.3-in would never register with me. I just checked the 'load floor' of my 2500HD- it's about 36.5" vs. the 34.1 of the Expedition. Negligible, IMO.

RE the interior- the stat that the Exp has roughly 11 CF more than the Suburban "largely due to the lower floor" is bunk: 1.3-in times what- 50"x50" = 3250 CI. A cubic foot is 1728 CI, so that 1.3-in lower floor is not even responsible for 2 CF. The other 9.5 CF comes from other compass directions (width, length height), not the 1.3-in lower floor. Make sense?

I know I am late to the party here, but being a resident Ford/Lincoln fan here now... I can say that I can see the new Navigator being extremely successful if Lincoln can market it well.

It checks most, if not all, the marks off....  Styling (although subjective) is certainly remarkable, tech is all there and interior is as good as any in its price range.

Well done here.

On 4/21/2017 at 5:45 PM, lengnert said:

I know I am late to the party here, but being a resident Ford/Lincoln fan here now... I can say that I can see the new Navigator being extremely successful if Lincoln can market it well.

It checks most, if not all, the marks off....  Styling (although subjective) is certainly remarkable, tech is all there and interior is as good as any in its price range.

Well done here.

I think it will be well received.  Lincoln is on a roll with the new Conti....like them or not, Lincoln is moving Iron and moving up in the world.

Have to say that I am interested in this new Navigator after seeing this Video review of the new baby!

https://www.autoblog.com/9102cdcd-e69c-4af0-9534-79ac9a0a09e6