Speaking of Ford Excursions...

[911boost]

I was talking about the newer HD GM trucks, not the Suburban.

[911boost]

Oh, and my 2004 6.0L Excursion cost me 23K. Please tell me where I can sell it for 30K and I will sign the title right now.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by BSiple

Oh, and my 2004 6.0L Excursion cost me 23K. Please tell me where I can sell it for 30K and I will sign the title right now.

Yours is a 6.0L.... too bad

If it were a 7.3L, people seem to be willing to pay the moon (hence my whole point)

There are some that reach $30K, but most are nearer $20K

Here's a 2001 Excursion 7.3 Diesel that actually sold after 7 bids for $23,100:
Ford : Excursion EXCURSION 7.3 Limited Ford : Excursion EXCURSION 7.3 Limited | eBay

[911boost]

Yeah too bad, I have more power, a better suspension...........

That actually isn't too bad for a truck with only 56K on it, and it does look clean.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by BSiple

That actually isn't too bad for a truck with only 56K on it, and it does look clean.

But, again, a similar gas rig would be nearly $10K less

Here's a 2001 V10 gas with ONLY 21K MILES that sold for under $11K:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2001-FORD-EXCURSION-XLT-LOW-LOW-MILES-RUNS-GREAT-EXCELLENT-PRICE-/140766767883?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item20c65a6b0b

[911boost]

I don't disagree, but it is no different than about anything car related. Look at what people pay or used Toyota's, or what we pay for a 3.2 Carrera, 993 etc, when they are "better" cars out there.

With a simple programmer that 7.3L will have a lot more HP and Torque than the v10 Excursion.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by BSiple

I don't disagree, but it is no different than about anything car related. Look at what people pay or used Toyota's, or what we pay for a 3.2 Carrera, 993 etc, when they are "better" cars out there.

With a simple programmer that 7.3L will have a lot more HP and Torque than the v10 Excursion.

I know, and you're right

But still, how would you justify a $12K difference? And the gasser had HALF the miles.
"Double the price for double the miles. Sounds good to me", said Kaisen, never.

The 993 is the perfect analogy. I'd buy a 996 Twin Turbo for what base 993s bring.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by kaisen

Yours is a 6.0L.... too bad

If it were a 7.3L, people seem to be willing to pay the moon (hence my whole point)

There are some that reach $30K, but most are nearer $20K

Here's a 2001 Excursion 7.3 Diesel that actually sold after 7 bids for $23,100:
Ford : Excursion EXCURSION 7.3 Limited Ford : Excursion EXCURSION 7.3 Limited | eBay

Wait a minute...

So possibly the nicest low-miles 7.3 Excursion for sale in the world, (nice colors, close to showroom condition), sells for $23k with a sales audience of everyone in the world looking for one and you are saying that others sell for $30k??

Please show me the $30k one. I'm dying to see that. The one in the link is worth $23k all day long and twice on Sunday. It's a chance to buy basically a brand-new vehicle that is no longer made and is extremely desirable. It would cost $75,000 new today if Ford made it. It will hold its value extremely well if it's kept in nice condition. It will always be the lowest mileage one around, unless they start putting 25k miles a year on it, in which case the fuel savings and retained resale value will definitely pay for itself over a large gas SUV.

If future trends in fuel prices continue to go in the upward direction, (a certainty), diesel over gas large SUVs will become more desirable, not less in the marketplace. You are already seeing this.

It is true that people use emotion in choosing vehicles, I prefer to just think of it as preference. You get annoyed when you think that the market is "wrong" for something, but in reality it's not. I would not want to own a V-10 Excursion. If someone gave me one for free, I'd be trying to dump it the next day. I simply do not want to own it. The fuel cost is a huge factor, it would cost me hundreds of dollars a week to drive it and I would not enjoy driving it like I would a diesel. 8k lb. trucks with massive gas engines and 4wd do not get 10 mpg in the real world. They get closer to 6-7mpg in my real world experience, and that is owning and renting HD PUs and vans with large gas engines.

Everyone is not wrong about diesels. They are the better choice and the market reflects it. Resale and how everyone else regards something greatly affects the value of said item. Kind of like a house in Minnesota vs. a house in coastal California. You can argue all day about whether it's "really worth it". It's worth it if everyone else agrees that it's worth it. And the resale value matters on houses and vehicles, and affects the *real price*.

[speeder]

And my stock 7.3 would definitely spin 3k rpm. But no real reason to.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by speeder

Wait a minute...

So possibly the nicest low-miles 7.3 Excursion for sale in the world, (nice colors, close to showroom condition), sells for $23k with a sales audience of everyone in the world looking for one and you are saying that others sell for $30k??

Please show me the $30k one. I'm dying to see that.

Here's one near you for $32995 (03 7.3 PSD 60K mi)
2003 Ford Excursion Eddie Bauer 7.3L 4WD/7015

Here's another for $29950 (03 7.3 PSD 63K mi)
Cars for Sale: 2003 Ford Excursion 4x4 Limited in West Liberty, OH 43357: Sport Utility Details - 323695343 - AutoTrader.com



Perhaps the difference was that the $23K eBay rig was a 2001 and these are "last-of-the-7.3s" 2003 models.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by speeder

And my stock 7.3 would definitely spin 3k rpm. But no real reason to.

Right, because it made about as much power at 3000 rpm as a Toyota Corolla

[speeder]

No No No No No...

Show me one that sold for $30k, not some dealer on autotrader asking $30k for one. You know the difference.

I see used car dealers asking $10k over actual value for used diesel trucks every day of the week in CA., just hoping that some incredibly stupid mook who has never heard of the internet walks in and bends over. That does not count.

Show me a believable, completed auction.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by kaisen

Right, because it made about as much power at 3000 rpm as a Toyota Corolla

No...not sure what truck you are referring to. It was a great truck with a lot of power.

The fact that diesels do all of their work in the lower rev range is a positive, not a negative. All of those truck and engine designers are not idiots.

Go to the 24 hours of Sebring or Daytona sometime and school those Audi team guys on the undesirability of their low-revving race car. You can catch up with them at the winner's party at some hotel when they're drunk.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by speeder

No...not sure what truck you are referring to. It was a great truck with a lot of power.

At 3000 rpm, any stock 7.3L PSD is making less than 150 hp and 200 lb-ft.
They fall on their face after 2500 rpm, dramatically. They'll spin to 3200 rpm, but making no useable power.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by speeder

The fact that diesels do all of their work in the lower rev range is a positive, not a negative. All of those truck and engine designers are not idiots.

Go to the 24 hours of Sebring or Daytona sometime and school those Audi team guys on the undesirability of their low-revving race car. You can catch up with them at the winner's party at some hotel when they're drunk.

Did you not read my post? Seriously, it's all there. With math and physics and stuff

A limited power band is not a positive. If they made enormously more power, maybe they could get away with it. And/or they had enough gears to exploit it.

If the 7.3L PSD was the cat's meow, why was it end-of-life in 2003, replaced with a 32 valve motor that made more horsepower and revved higher?
I'll be sure to let Ford's engineers know that Denis believes that horsepower and rpm aren't at all important in a light duty truck

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by speeder

8k lb. trucks with massive gas engines and 4wd do not get 10 mpg in the real world. They get closer to 6-7mpg in my real world experience, and that is owning and renting HD PUs and vans with large gas engines.

I had a 2002 Excursion Limited 4x4 7.3L "back in the day"
I hated that truck. It was slow. Very slow by modern diesel standards, for anyone who has driven, say, a 2006 truck let alone a 2012. And maybe that was my perspective because that same year my parents got their first crew cab Duramax and it would run circles around it. Made my Excursion experience frustrating. The only truck I've owned that was slower was my 1995 Cummins 4x4.

From my personal experience, that truck weighed 8150 pounds (on a trucker's scale) with a full tank of fuel. And the ball and drawbar in the hitch.

I saw about 12 mpg around town, and about 17 mpg on the freeway at 75 mph. Towing on the freeway depended on what was behind it, but was roughly 12-15 mpg.

I've owned other diesel pickups, Ford, Dodge, and GM. Denis knows this.

I currently have TWO Suburban 8.1L's. One is a 2001 4x4 with 4.10 gears, and the other is a loaded 2003 with 3.73 gears. The 2001 burns more fuel (avg ~11mpg) but is noticeably more responsive. The 2003 has 285/70-17 tires which are significantly larger than the 245/75-16 stock size, effectively changing the gearing.

My 2003 consistenly returns 12 mpg around town. That's hand-calculated GPS miles, not the odometer (speedo/odo is off due to the tires) and not what the DIC trip computers calculate. At 60 mph, it gets 17-18 mpg, repeatable. At 65 mph it drops to 16-17. At 75 mph it's down to 15-16. One fill with a Westerly tailwind saw 19 mpg at 74 mph. Overall, empty, I can count on 14-15 mpg.

Towing really depends. It can be 7-8 mpg around town stop-and-go (4000lb car/trailer), or 12-13 mpg freeway depending on speed. I haven't yet pulled a larger trailer. Yet.

I've not yet seen a tank or fill that has been 10 mpg or less as Denis suggests. Just my experience. My anecdote. Admittedly, I'm a smooth driver and roll into the throttle not stomp. I use cruise religiously. I try to be easy on it because abrupt torque application has the tendency to break things.

The overall fuel economy, in my personal observation, is almost exactly what I got with my 2006 Navigator. Also similar to my V10 E350 Passenger van. And what I recall getting in 1/2 ton Subs, Denalis, and Escalades over the years (5.3s and 6.0s). I'm pleased with the fuel economy.

YMMV

[speeder]

The 7.3 died for emissions reasons. It could have been massaged for quite a bit more torque if not mistaken.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by gprsh924

Eric I love your logical breakdowns in these debates.

I'm waiting for the captivating response: "Yea but still"

Yeah, but still you would be better off with the turbo diesel towing in the mountains, just like the post he "replied" to stated.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by Rufblackbird

how come? I'm currently trying to decide between a '01 Silverado 3500 with a 8.1/allison (had a '01 Sierra 3500 with the 8.1/allison before, sold it with 360k miles) vs a '99 F350 with the 7.3 powerstroke, with the psd costing about $3k more.

Originally Posted by Tobra

Yeah, but still you would be better off with the turbo diesel towing in the mountains, just like the post he "replied" to stated.

Really? I didn't know Rufblackbird lived in the mountains, although I guess Phoenix is pretty close to them

[Hugh R]

I don't know about the engines on Suburbans, but we ran a bunch of
4WD or AWD ones through Canyon de Chelly for The Lone Ranger a few months ago. We were running them in water up to the running boards, and not one of them got wet under the hood and died. Same with the Toyotas. I felt we should be making a Suburban or Toyota commercial. The things were impressive.