Car & Driver tests $108k 450 hp/6,100 lb Lincoln Navigator. Results as expected ...

[CareerFiremanGuy]

Where on earth did they add an extra 1,225 lbs in weight?
It's lateral acceleration/braking/mpg numbers are more reminiscent of a vehicle from the 70's.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a39317584/2022-lincoln-navigator-drive/

By The Numbers: Navigator / ST

0-60 mph: Nav 5.3 sec / ST 5.2 sec
1/4-Mile: Nav 13.9 sec @ 100 mph / ST 13.8 sec @ 101 mph
Rolling Start 5–60 mph: Nav 6.0 sec / ST 5.9 sec
30–50 mph: Nav 3.2 sec / ST 3.2 sec
50–70 mph: Nav 4.0 sec / ST 3.8 sec
Top Speed (gov ltd): Nav 124 mph / ST 146 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: Nav 185 ft / ST 161 ft
Skidpad: Nav 0.75 g / ST 0.86 g
Observed MPG: Nav 16 mpg / ST 21 mpg

 

[Cruising68]

Damn over $100k for a Navigator. My first
New car was a 1987 Chevy Cavalier Z24 was $10,500 loaded


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

I remember buying a brand new 2004 SRT-4, it was $20k, fast as heck and worth every penny!

 

[Jeppo]

How many bolts hold the rear end?

 

[Chaseg08]

Navigator is an Expedition. Aviator is an Explorer. The Navigator is a much larger vehicle.

 

[Cruising68]

Yes but I think it was more about the price difference 60k vs over 100k but I might be wrong. I’ve had plenty of full sized SUV and while they all went ok, handling was NOTHING like my ST.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

How many bolts hold the rear end?

Quick Answer: One short of what's necessary!

Navigator is an Expedition. Aviator is an Explorer. The Navigator is a much larger vehicle.

Barely larger in cargo volume and width, more passenger volume. Worth an extra $30k-$48k?

DIMENSIONS: NAV vs. ST

Wheelbase: Nav 122.5 in / ST 119.1 in
Length: Nav 210.0 in / ST 199.3 in
Width: Nav 79.9 in / 78.9 in
Height: Nav 76.3 in / 70.2 in
Passenger Volume: Nav 178 ft / ST 149 ft
Cargo Volume: Nav 19 ft / 18 ft

Yes but I think it was more about the price difference 60k vs over 100k but I might be wrong. I’ve had plenty of full sized SUV and while they all went ok, handling was NOTHING like my ST.

Yup. Nav is more like having an upmarket school bus. ST is performance oriented and better mpg too.

 

[Chaseg08]

Barely larger in cargo volume and width, more passenger volume. Worth an extra $30k-$48k?

DIMENSIONS: NAV vs. ST

Wheelbase: Nav 122.5 in / ST 119.1 in
Length: Nav 210.0 in / ST 199.3 in
Width: Nav 79.9 in / 78.9 in
Height: Nav 76.3 in / 70.2 in
Passenger Volume: Nav 178 ft / ST 149 ft
Cargo Volume: Nav 19 ft / 18 ft

Your first question was "Where on earth did they add an extra 1,225 lbs in weight?" It's a completely different vehicle with a larger chassis, trans, motor, etc. It appears that you're comparing the Navigator directly to the Explorer when they are completely different classes of SUV.

 

[MikeyP]

Barely larger in cargo volume and width, more passenger volume. Worth an extra $30k-$48k?
ST is performance oriented and better mpg too.

Well the cost difference isn't about the size, it's about the interior and build quality. And not that people buying a Navigator (or an ExST) are that concerned with MPG, but a smaller, lighter vehicle with a smaller motor getting better MPG isn't that much of a surprise.

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

Your first question was "Where on earth did they add an extra 1,225 lbs in weight?" It's a completely different vehicle with a larger chassis, trans, motor, etc. It appears that you're comparing the Navigator directly to the Explorer when they are completely different classes of SUV.

You are right, I am comparing two different classes of SUV's. That was my intention, to ask if an extra $50k is worth the additional accoutrements .

Well the cost difference isn't about the size, it's about the interior and build quality. And not that people buying a Navigator (or an ExST) are that concerned with MPG, but a smaller, lighter vehicle with a smaller motor getting better MPG isn't that much of a surprise.

Actually, it's about both size and quality. And my noting of mpg was not for the sake of Nav owners, it was for the sake of comparison. That people would desire such a configuration isn't that much of a surprise considering the world we're living in.

 

[MikeyP]

In the spirit of this thread, comparing two vastly different cars, I'll compare my ExST to the Ford Transit I just rented from UHaul:

Performance: I didn't measure anything with a Draggy, but the Transit is rocking the 3.5EB, so it was able to keep up with slow Friday lunch-time traffic just as well as my ST would have.

Space: Not even a contest, the Transit wins.

Fuel Economy: Transit wins! 17 mpg over the 20 miles I drove it, vs my ST usually getting 16 around town.

Sporty-ness: Well the Transit has only 2 seats so it's obviously a sports car. Winner!

Cost: Transit wins again. Is the ExST worth the extra $$$$ over a Transit work van? I think based on my super scientific research, it is not. Time to go trade the ST in!

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

In light of an inane comment, the posturing for an irrelevant point, I'll compare logical thought to nonsensical musings.

A Van: is not an SUV

A Sedan: is not an SUV

A Truck: is not an SUV

Hope that was informational enough for those in need. Time to search for those who possess critical thinking!

 

[ZRX61]

In light of an inane comment, the posturing for an irrelevant point, I'll compare logical thought to nonsensical musings.

A Van: is not an SUV

A Sedan: is not an SUV

A Truck: is not an SUV

Hope that was informational enough for those in need. Time to search for those who possess critical thinking!

And like the Expedition, the Navigator is built on the F150 frame & running gear etc.

 

[MikeyP]

Where was critical thinking missing:

Post 1: Performance stat comparison between the Navigator and ExST showing they accelerate about the same and the Navigator handles like the Titanic. This is silliness as the Navigator is a lux SUV that really only needs to get out of it's own way, while the ExST is a performance SUV.

Post 7: Basic size stat comparison, then questioning the cost difference. This is silliness as there's no context to the interior size difference; how does the extra height effect headroom, how does the longer wheelbase effect passenger leg room? It's implied then the Navigator is an entire Maverick more expensive than the ExST for no reason other than a few extra cubes of interior room. There's no mention of the real reason for the difference: the interior. Navigator has one of the nicest interiors in the game with multiple unusual colors available, while the Explorer, well, it's interior is functional and indicative of the standard Explorer base price being less than half of the Navigator's base price.

Post 11: A sarcastic, pointless post comparing 2 entirely different vehicles, much like this thread. At least Post 11 touches on the key difference between those 2 vehicles (3rd line), while no post I saw touched on the key difference between the the Navigator and ExST.