YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!! One more evil monster SUV bites the dust!! A trend I hope continues.

Excursion near end of road

Reports say Ford will discontinue 19-foot-long SUV after the 2004 model year.
July 31, 2002: 8:03 AM EDT



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Ford Motor Co. is set to discontinue the Ford Excursion, its largest sport/utility vehicle, after the 2004 model year, according to broadcast and published reports Wednesday.

WDIV-TV in Detroit and the New York Times, both citing unnamed sources, said the No. 2 automaker will discontinue the model, whose sales have been falling and which never lived up to projected demand.


Reports say Ford is set to discontinue its largest SUV, the Excursion, after the 2004 model year.
Both the station and the paper quoted Ford representatives as saying they would not comment on plans for the vehicle beyond saying it is included in the 2003 model lineup, due in showrooms later this year.

The Excursion, introduced in 1999, holds eight passengers and is almost two feet longer than Ford's next largest SUV, the Ford Expedition. and has a manufacturer's suggested list price of $36,105 to $48,150. At nearly 19 feet long, nearly 7 feet tall in its four-wheel drive version, and getting only 10 miles to a gallon, it has been criticized almost from the start as an extreme example of the gas-guzzling SUV that towers over other vehicles on the road. In addition, SUV buyers have become more interested in compact models, such as the Ford Escape, which had nearly five times as many sales in 2001.

Ford has sold 15,107 Excursions through the first six months of the year, down 16 percent from the year-earlier period. Last year's sales of 34,710 were down almost a third from 2000, its first full year in production.


This is what gets me "...is so large that Ford installed a blocker beam to prevent it from rolling over smaller cars in crashes" Funny thing is most of the f'in things are single person vehicles.

Yes, it appears the whole "I wanna go and collect the mail in a tank" redneck mentality is slowly dying out.

I wish you were right, ChrisL, but I don't think that mentality is going away soon - not in the USA, anyway. I continue to see people buying big cars and using them to go short distances.

HOWEVER, I have also been hearing Big Gas Sucking Hog drivers say that they are tired of being critisized about driving SUVs. There MIGHT be some social increasing pressure to be more environmentally responsible when chosing which automobile to buy.

Some car freaks don't like it either

I like the image in this piece:

The excursion was supposed to compete with the Chevy Suburban. It is a bit bigger, but not that much, but it weighs ALOT more and get FAR worse mileage.

Yes, the Ford Valdez is dying...about frickin' time...

...but this image reminds me yet again of my favorite all-time bicycle tune..."...Fat Bottom Girls...get on your bikes and ride"...(Queen)

I wish they would discontinue it after the 2002 model year.

Actually, I think parking lot designers at restaurants and malls got 'em.

They keep shrinking the size of spaces and distance between rows everytime they repaint or build a new parking lot. It seems that way anyhow.

Gas, car and insurance payments make it hard to afford valet parking everywhere they drive and those things just "look" hard to maneuver in tight spaces.

Carl

I have to agree - I think that instead of people paying the same for vehicle registration (state to state) they should have to pay by the pound - that way if your environmentally conscious and drive a small efficient car, your wallet gets a break, and so do the roads and other drivers. If you choose to drive a huge behemoth like the Excursion you pay your fare share. If this were the case the Excursion may have never been built.

I totally agree.

I'm sorry, but, the argument that all SUV drivers are obese, selfish, psychotic, homicidal, tree-killing, etc., etc., etc... is getting very old. I personally don't know more than a handful of people who fit this equation

However, I also know a bunch of folk who own an SUV who bear no resemblance to the aforementioned sociopath. One, I see in the mirror every morning. I did own the aforementioned Excursion. I don't own it now because of the mechanical ineptitude inherent in the vehicle. I now have a suburban. It's a much better vehicle from an engineering and manufacturing standpoint.

I own one SUV. Our other vehicle is a small GM that gets tons of mileage. My wife and I use it for longer trips that don't require both of us, and/or our four children to go along. I ride more than I drive. I love it and it helps provide exercise on busy weeks when time for other forms of exercise isn't available.

My wife rides for exercise and short trips when it isn't necessary to have a basketball team in tow. The SUV is used for long trips and trips where all, or most, of the household are present. I also use it to tow goods, materials, etc... related to my business. Occasionally, I use it to tow our boat to and from storage. It should last many, many years with the mileage we put on the vehicle.

Oh, we also rarely add any type of chemical on our property. We recycle, eat healthy, shun fast food, don't watch the boob tube too often, and, I love a good imported beer !

Finally, I've found SUV drivers to be pretty consistent with the population as a whole. They run the gammut of human existence as far as lifestyle and personalities. They can't be pigeon-holed any more than cyclists can. You know, the cyclist who drive their bikes to a ride, and, back again. Who drive to the store, library, work, etc... when a ride would suffice perfectly. The ones who wouldn't know a recycling bin if it fell on their head. Who ride for the social aspect alone. Of course, they are free to do all of these things just as I am free to pursue the course I have.

The more militant cyclists get as it pertains to non-cyclists, the less chance large numbers of people can be convinced to give it a try. No one likes to be attacked, and, they sure aren't going to "see the light" suddenly and join hands with the people doing the attacking. At least the vast majority won't. It's the main reason I don't belong to a club or participate in more group events. I tired of hearing the "great spandex ones" trash many activities and items associated with me when they drive to the ride(and, most other places), or, do nothing outside of the rides to address any situation they like to describe in hand-wringing detail. Oh, I drop most of them on the rides also. It seems that's the only significant mileage most of them attempt.

I've always found that identifying common-ground, and, having a rational discourse concerning topics of contention is more effective than search-and-destroy tactics. Logical, rational debate will win many more over than ridicule and scorn. Unfortunately, too many are in the arena just for the opportunity to ridicule, scorn, and, be part of some "movement" whether real or perceived.

FitCyclist

Welcome to the forums, fitcyclist Thanks for an intelligent counterpoint.

Good point - I have to agree.
Now back to big gas guzzling vehicles-
When the Excursion came out it seemed like a big step back for the auto industry. For a while the auto manufactures were going in a direction of overall efficiency and practicality. Autos with smaller motors were able to tow more, hold more passengers, and produce more HP with better fuel efficiency. But in the late 90s the economy got better, people had more money, and cars got bigger and less efficient. We are ruled by the almighty dollar - the less we have to spend the more efficient minded we become, and vise versa.

I have 3 children, and tow a travel trailer, and the vehicle I do it all with gets 21.5 MPG average and weighs half what an Excursion weighs. If I really wanted to, I could buy an Excursion - but it would be more for status and luxury, than practicality and efficiency.

Ha, ha, ha!

The author wasn't sure what Ford meant by having 5 'power points' but I have a feeling that means electrical outlets. Just think, the passengers could watch 5 different TV shows at the same time--no squabbling over what station to watch. Better yet, network 5 laptops, and they could play a Quake tournament on the way to Tahoe. Wouldn't that be even more fun than conference-calling on your cel phone as you drive?

I figured they meant buttons to operate power windows. Well, I don't know either, but my arm sure gets tired cranking that handle!

(Ha, ha, ha! )

fitcyclist, thanks for the viewpoint on the issue. But, let me clarify my stance on this. I have no problem with the use of these vehicles when they are used for thier original INTENDED purpose. ie: Carrying large groups of people / cargo, towing, and OFF ROAD / poor conditions driving (ie a northern MN blizzard where you can get a foot an hour or more) where 4 wheel drive is an asset rather than a gas sucking liability. ( I do realize that 2 wheel drive versions are out there, but that's not the main point) What I'm against in my "narrow" little mindset is those jabronies out there that use them to run to the store for milk, to drive themselves to work as a single occupant vehicle (Suburbans make EXCELLENT carpool vehicles), and wanna be "playas" who use them as a platform for their stereo systems so that they can drive around parking lots setting off car alarms. Driving is a privilage, NOT a right, and I wish that people whould make their new automotive vehicle choices based more on practicallity than the so-called "bling-bling" factor.


But that's my 2 cents.

I live in a province where the economy is driven by the oil and gas industry. From my own personal observations I can say that the majority of SUV owners/drivers in these parts personify the stereotype. They are either trophy wives rushing from committee meetings to charity events to nail appointments or the stressed husbands of said wives manically rushing to get to the office (weaving from lane to lane, talking on the cell phone).

Okay, that's a bit cynical and a wee bit of an exageration.
And I, in no way, am trying to pigeon hole anyone who owns a SUV. There are those who own them for legitimate reasons....and those that don't. Around here unfortunately, they are strictly status symbols. I have yet to see a Lincoln Navigator sitting at any trailhead of our favorite rides. The most off-roading any driver of these behemoths sees around here is bumping up onto curbs while parallel parking.

If you must own a SUV, at least use it for what it was intended.

You are all speaking out of turn, I am a cyclist from the heart, I ride over 10,000 miles a year and commute to work daily on a bike, 18.5 miles each way. I most likely ride much more often and much greater distances then most of you. The problems I have with motor vehicles are not with ford excursions or other large SUV's. The most problems I have are with mini vans, volvos, saabs and school busses, be honest now, you know I'm correct, I'm out there all the time. I have owned an excursion for almost 2 years now and have over 25,000 miles on it. It is by far the most safe, most useful vehicle on the road, I can carry 5 bikes, 5 riders with gear, all in comfort on a long trip to a greater riding destiation. I can tow my large boat and bring building materials to my home. I have never even almost hit anyone with it. I have never had it sneak out at night and look for cyclist to hunt down.
I would buy one again without a thought. Again, ride your bike, let people live and do as they wish, that's why we live and play in America. never mind complaining about all things that have nothing to do woth you. In other words, GROW UP.

MMMM?

Do I smell a hypocrite? or am i just speaking out of turn again?

IMHO your right to drive a Ford Excursion ends where my lungs begin.

Amen.

The excursion is an LEV, contrary to the media hype, it gets 13 - 14 mpg around town and 15 - 17 on the highway, that's real world mileage and better then a toyota four runner. Sorry if I bent your nose, but talk to those that actually own a large truck before you make statements based purely on opinion. Obviously the world would be a much better place if everyone rode bicycles, but there are some of us that need a big truck to do what we do. I suppose one could take 2 or 3 vehicles to do the same things, that would make sense, don't you think?

No, that's an outrage.

You didn't. And I said, "IMHO" which means: In My Humble Opinion to hilight the fact that I was offering my opinion.

Agreed.

I'm not convinced that big trucks have to get such pitiful gas mileage. Also, I strongly suspect (warning: opinion) that the majority of peple who drive these behemoths don't need them.