ccap41

Yes, those are all expensive but that's what most of the asking prices are on full size SUVs... That's why 18,700 really isn't that bad of a starting point, at least IMO. Considering budget is of the most important things here, none of those are even under 20k. Flexes aren't a bad idea. They're kind of along the lines of ugly and cool, actually. MKTs are just the worse looking vehicles made in the last 20 years. I hate those things so got damn much, Hahaha. What's exciting about a Pilot? Some n/a v6 with no torque? I'm sure it's a great overall vehicle.. It's just as boring as a Traverse or Explorer though.

Budget. If this weren't priced right, I wouldn't consider it. We don't NEED this vehicle or something this large. I just really despise most anything else in this year-range that's a smaller 3-row SUV, Traverses, Explorers, Highlanders, basic-Durangos, whatever-Kia/Hyundai-3-row-SUV-that's-boring-as-fck-too. I've been keeping an eye out for the 03-05 Aviators. They're either all trashed or asking 10-12k for one with less than 100k miles. They just don't seem worth it, even though I think they're cool. I've also been keeping an eye out on the 06-10 Explorers with the 4.6, but almost everybody ordered theirs with the slow and inefficient 4.0 V6.

I don't think you guys realize how well all of these full-size SUVs hold their value.

Yeah, it's one of those ugly vehicles that I still think look kind of good. If that even makes sense, Hahaha. I'm trying to think of another ugly vehicle that I like, but nothing is popping into be head right now.

Genuinely not trying to be a dick, but can you find something that fits that in your area? I've come across a '17 Expedition Limited for basically the same price w/ 110k miles on it...but it's 5 hours away. My wife and I used to be totally down to make a trip for a vehicle that fits our budget and vehicle criteria, but it's a little different with a little one now. I don't think I'd make a 10hr round trip purchase with a 9mo old. I pretty much find the opposite without going considerably older. I should also note that the 17's have CarPlay and anything older does not, at least at Ferd. I'm not tied to Ford/Lincoln, they just seem to be cheaper than the GM triplet.

Opinions from the regulars, @Drew Dowdell, @G. David Felt, @Robert Hall, @A Horse With No Name, @daves87rs, @trinacriabob, @surreal1272, @smk4565if he's still out there... @oldshurst442

Hey guys! I kind of accidently came across this while just looking for something to fit our needs. I certainly don't need something quite this large, but it does seem pretty awesome. So anyway, I came across a 2017 Lincoln Navigator Reserve priced at 18,7XX. It does have a lot of miles, but all full-size SUVs(regardless of brand) seem to last forever as long as you don't neglect them. It has 128k on the odometer already. It kind of worries me, but it isn't 1990 and vehicles last a heck of a lot longer than they used to. This price is what really made me look into it further because it's really good. Most anything else full size has either more miles or costs considerably more. This more or less "fell into my lap" while just looking for other vehicles to replace the MKC. It's the last year of this generation of Navigator along with the final year of the gen1 EcoBoost and 6spd auto. I would have to imagine that combination should be pretty bulletproof at the last year of production, right? FWIW, this is a 380hp/460tq version of the gen1 EcoBoost. The previous owners seem to have maintained it pretty well with oil change intervals of 5-8k. I have read these EcoBoosts need frequent oil changes and not to exceed 5k with full syn. That part isn't an issue for me, but the previous owners weren't as strict as I would be. in addition to the oil change intervals, Per the Carfax, and what I saw in person, it has all new front brakes (pads and rotors) and wheel bearings. It also has a brand new set of tires on it (a brand I don't recognize and not what I'd choose, but still great to have). My wife and I went and looked at it in person Saturday, after hours, to just get an idea of how clean or not clean it was on the outside. It's surprisingly REALLY clean. I figured there would at least be a scuffed wheel or two, but there wasn't. Well guys, what do you think? Here are some pictures from their website, that I also linked below. https://www.stauntonchrysler.com/used/Lincoln/2017-Lincoln-Navigator-a7f35ee3ac18177fef5a1c1aa81e45c7.htm

I'm not much a fan of casinos either. Buuuuuut, I do enjoy sports betting.

That was a very long-winded way of saying you got ~70tq So, how's it feel with the additional torque?!?

Yup, it's weird how quiet a vehicle is at parking lot speeds when there's no engine up front. Complete silence. I actually had to explain this to a coworker who heard a hybrid Honda in the parking garage and he said it sounded like something was wrong with it. I explained the reasoning for the "whir-ing" sound, so he wouldn't get hit. I've been good, been busy with an 8-month-old, work, and doing stuff around the house. There's always a new project!

Yeah, I don't know why anyone would even consider an EV if they were stuck 100% publicly charging. That seems like a horrible decision.

What'd the EV6 driver say about his charging adventures? As for the humming sound of the hybrid Honda, I believe they do that for safety reasons, that way it isn't creeping along at parking lot speeds literally silent. I think a few or most hybrids do this and I thought I read that it was so people can hear them at low speeds, where there's zero tire noise. I thought EVs were supposed to be doing this, as well, but I haven't noticed if they are or aren't. @Drew Dowdell could yo confirm this or tell me I'm wrong, hahaha?

That's a truck and a larger vehicle. You know that's not exactly the same. People don't expect trucks to be very quick (yet they've gotten damn quick over the last 10 years). People love to say how quick EVs are. I'd bet some of that transition was due to transmissions having many more gears. Those old 3-4spd autos NEEDED a much wider powerband. When you have 6-10 forward ratios, your powerband can be smaller as the transmission will keep you where you need to be. And yes, that's why I'm not a fan of any N/A V6. No bottom end and very little midrange.

Yes, understand all of this. My point still stands that it isn't "more powerful" or quicker. That was literally all I was stating. I certainly plan to. I have zero issues with EVs outside of their prices. 8.8 seconds to 60mph, you're racing every time pulling onto an onramp. That's slow. That's not just "not very quick", it's slow. What GM V8 makes "a ton of torque" at 1000-1500rpm? I understand the bottom of the rev range but 1000rpm is nearly idle. Unless you're talking about a diesel, I just don't believe you.

It depends how underpowered a vehicle is. I'm sure we all have horrible on-ramps where a 200hp, 5000lb SUV would need to be floored or very close to it to merge. But at the same time, a 500hp 5000lb vehicle may only need 50% throttle to achieve the same thing. EVs feel effortless because there's no noise from an engine. That doesn't mean it's effortless for the motors point of view. I've read way more things saying their overly heavy weight effects this than people's heavy right foot. Yet, still slower. I have not driven a PEASANT electric vehicle. *sarcasm* But really, I have not.

I wasn't the one who said you get "more power" from a base EV9. I wasn't trying to say it was slow or cumbersome. I merely stated the pretty damn big price difference, and you tried telling me that you get more, which power was listed, from a base EV9. You do not get more power, and you do get a slightly slower vehicle, much slower if you get the Long Range. I doubt that. Since when has Kia/Hyundai ever underrated anything? You're just feeling the instantaneous torque of an electric vehicle.

Something that has less hp and less tq and also weighs ~1000lb more just isn't going to be as quick. I know the instantaneous nature of an EV has its advantages, but they only go so far. Per any test review, the telluride is quicker to 60 than a Light and especially a Light Long Range and I'm sure the advantage only grows surpassing 60mph, because, again, EVs acceleration always taper off at higher speeds, highway speeds. i'm not saying the EV9 Light/Long Range are going to be bothersome or bad around town. I'm just saying that there is no advantage at their base prices, like Drew said. The 10-15k EV premium at their base prices does not yield a quicker or more powerful vehicle. That is factual. Per MT's test of a FWD Telluride it went 0-60 in 6.9 seconds and stopped from 60 in 113ft Per Kia's media site the Light RWD goes 0-60 in 7.7 seconds and stops in 128ft (62mph-0) Per Kia's media site the Light Long Range RWD goes 0-60 in 8.8 seconds and stops in 128ft (62mph-0)

Hahaha okay okay okay... I think they just have two engines, a 1.5T and a 2.0T. That 1.5T is a 3-banger though but the numbers seem "adequate", 181hp/190tq. I wouldn't want that engine, and I'd easily jump to the 2.0T. I had the 2.0T in my former Escape and I liked it a lot.

Oh, sorry! The 2.3T is the base engine (can be had with a manual trans), the 2.7t is the optional engine and the 3.0T is the Raptor engine.

For an MKC? Nah, it was available on 3 of the 4 trims, if I remember correctly. I don't believe it was available on the Select but it was available on the Reserve, Premier & Black Label.

Yeah, and when you actually need to get up to highway speed or pass somebody, that's where the superior hp figure comes into play. EVs clearly taper off. I haven't seen a test where an EV's 0-60 wasn't quick while having a mediocre 1/4 mile and an odd trap speed, for its respective segment. The Telluride will be quicker than the Light and Light Long Range RWD to highway speeds. They're borderline underpowered, IMO. You have to spend 64k to get something that's legitimately quicker than the Telluride.

Yeah, that's what the Maverick Lobo should have gotten, too. it just isn't a very efficient engine for the class of vehicles that are supposed to be efficient. I assume that's why it never really got spread around more. My MKC is only related at 18/26 compared to a new Escape 2.0's 23/31. I know it's more powerful, but those are pretty significate fuel efficiency numbers.

You also only get 230 miles of range so it's obviously a give and take with what you get at a base price. If the statement on their website is accurate, a heat pump "is available", meaning you must pay extra for that. 230 miles of range, I'd want every available feature to make it as efficient as possible from Nov-Mar. A base EV9 only has 215hp/258tq vs 291hp/262tq. I know EVs will put the power down differently, but I cannot imagine a much heavier EV9 being much different than the gasser in terms of acceleration with those numbers. A couple grand for a Mach-e over an Edge makes more sense, a couple grand. That's a pretty noticeable amount different than say 10-15k.

My Lincoln MKC is the smallest SUV Ford/Lincoln put the 2.3T in. The Bronco Sport with the 2.0T is probably perfectly fine and doesn't really need the 2.3 the Ranger has. The Ranger is bigger and heavier and needs the extra hp/tq to achieve the same results.

They're "not" but everybody seems to treat them like they are. If you're going to compare EVs to "traditional" brands, then they're still a long way off. 36k for a Telluride or 55k for an EV9. ~15k difference with the fed's rebate still. Even add in some state's rebates and let's say it's "only" 10k more for an EV9 over a Telluride. 10k in gas and oil changes is A LOT of gas and oil changes, that also aren't being financed and charged interest.