Anyone know why I can't have both?

Actual interference between a different damper for the two wheels?

I see 20's are 8.5 wide vs 22's at 9" wide...

I am guessing larger diameter damper tube causing an interference?

who can I call that is in the know?...local dealer likely clueless.

Edit: 2015 Expy EL

 

My guess is that the Nivomat load leveling rear shocks don't have or cannot be modified to have the sensors required for the continuously controlled suspension. The continuously controlled suspension is probably required with the 22" wheels to control the higher un-sprung weight of the larger wheels and tires.

 

My guess owning the 22's and looking at the 20's, I think that Ford wanted to step up with their new CCD suspension, but it simply did not have the LL functionality as well as CCD, and to redesign for both elements was time/cost prohibitive.

 

Perhaps it is a measure of the tire & wheel's capability with high loading. The very idea of a load leveling suspension is obviously a result of a heavy load. Think about the sidewall on a 22" wheel vs a side wall on a 20".
Now try and cover warrantees on a vehicle where you are equipping it with a suspension that is advertized for heavy loads, but a wheel and tire combo that will be highly susceptible to breaking belts and damaging wheels with anything but the smoothest of roads.
There is a reason why you will not find a load range E tire with that aspect ratio. The dimensions just aren't there for a tough reliable tire rated to support that weight.

We all have to understand, that in order for Ford to make this vehicle profitable, they have to appeal to as many buyer demographics as possible. The 22" wheel bling for the soccer moms and urban cowboys just can't hang with the demands of the people who actually use the "U" in a truck based SUV.
The corkscrew on a swiss army knife works, but I doubt you will ever see one being used at a dinner party...... if that makes any sense.

But all of this is just speculation on my part.

 

The 22" wheel/tire combo that is not available with LL suspension carries the same 113 load index as the 20" setup that is available with LL. Expedition GVR and tow ratings don't change with respect to 20 vs 22' wheel/tires. IMHO, if the 22" tires were a limiting factor 1) they wouldn't be offered on the Expedition, or b) GVR/tow would change. Why would Ford assume the additional liability on the low production vehicle ?

The vehicle's load carrying ratings or tow capabilities don't change with LL, it's only meant to remedy the squat induced with heavier rear-biased loads (ie: 6+ people and gear). In terms of towing, WD is always required irrespective of tire choice to reach max tow.

Just a few short years ago there were no 20" tires available in the XL load range, now they can be had in 20s as well as 22s. 10 years ago (when 17s were the largest wheel/tire available) running 20" wheels on a Expedition would have been thought to be gaudy, ridiculous and Gangsta, now its the norm. why? Because it is a better performer for the Expedition's intended purpose. Tire technology is on the fast track.

Not sure why anyone would want a E load range tire on a IRS-equipped vehicle only rated to tow ~9k lbs, way, way overkill, at the expense of ride and mileage. There are much better tow platforms to leverage the E tire capabilities.

The more I think about LL with the CCD suspension the more I believe that the 2 were not commercially available together from a supplier that Ford wanted to use, and that Ford believes that from a financial perspective it made no sense to invest the time or $ to develop something that they may only sell a few thousand of per year. Only my opinion of course.

 

I agree 100% with your assessment. I wish it were available as I think the 22" wheels look badass.
I used the examples as just a comparison to the physical capabilities of the sidewall.
If you hit a nasty pothole at 50mph, you may be perfectly fine with a 17" wheel with 65 series tires. Hitting that same pothole with a 40 series tire at that same speed will likely break a belt, or may even bend the wheel rim.
They can both have the same weight rating, it's just one will fair better than the other.
But I agree with you, I just wish Ford would have given us that option. Now I am wondering if I should try sourcing a set of take offs and trying them out.

 

Hitting a pothole at 50mph has nothing to do with load leveling suspension not working with 22" wheels.


I am going to email Ford and find out. I just bought a 15 EL with LL and want the 22's for summer use. Before I spend the coin on my soccer mom gangster mobile I want to see what Ford has to say.

 

Emailed last night to a generic address through Fords website. I will give it a week and then try calling them as well. I will also reach out to my local dealer to see if they have a help line to call.

 

A few years ago there was an extended thread about F150 net payloads and the door sticker payloads were always lower with 20" wheels than with 18's. I am guessing that the 22" wheels functionally have a smaller safe payload yet than 20's despite the numerical load rating of the tires. I think rubber band tires on huge wheels look ghetto and not badass. In Detroit, I laugh at Hummers that are on rubber bands with 26" wheels. The wheel/tire combo ends up heavier, harder to balance, way more expensive, and way more fragile with the only function being looks.

The Raptor has 35" tires on 17" wheels. THAT looks badass to me and has a lot more capability to hit chuckholes and hazards. The Raptor was built for function (despite the fact that most people use it as a showoff mall crawler).

I'm guessing there is nothing that would prevent you from putting on 22" wheels with a load leveling suspension. It's your dime if you bubble a tire and bend a wheel on a hard bump. I've done it with low profile tires on cars and Detroit potholes and would never want ultra low profile tires on a real truck.

George

 

Yogeorge.......see post 5.

 

I did read it more carefully; the load ratings are the same but if you hit a hard chuckhole edge or lose control on glare ice and hit a curb with a lower profile tire there is more chance of damage to the wheel and to the tire; that is a fact. And if you have a leak in a tire, the 22 will have less safety margin to get you or your wife safely off the freeway or to a repair facility. I've driven a million miles or so in my life and stuff happens...

The one Ford truck seriously built for offroad performance, the Raptor, used 17" wheels and 35" tires for a reason. Wheels are big enough to clear the brakes, but there is more tire to take impacts. I'd rather hit chuckholes or curbs with the Raptor tire/wheel combo.

I am contemplating an Expy and would prefer 18" wheels over the other choices. Call me old fashioned but the Expy is an old fashioned truck and that is the reason I want one. You are welcome to do what you like and so long as the tire load rating is adequate with the 22's, no harm should come to you except to your wallet up front and in the event of damage.

Good luck, and have a great holiday season, all...
George

 

Comparing the purpose-built Raptor's wheel/tire combo to an Expedition is about as big as a stretch as it gets. If I had to hit chuckholes or curbs my vehicle of choice would be an Abrams tank, they're great for parallel parking to. ;^)

Whether we like it or not larger wheels are simply better performers for 99% of street duties and there is little appreciable difference in cost between the same quality tire whether 18" or 20" or 22". I've got cars in the garage with F-70-14 Polyglas tires and even older Goodyear Blue Dots, and there is nothing else i would put on those cars, but they are dinosaurs compared to today's technology.

 

You know, I am a fellow car enthusiast. I admire your collection. I also share a lot of your taste as far as what is pleasing to the eye with regards to cars.
What I do not understand is you seem to have the need to either rebunk or argue other's points.
If I remember, this thread was a "why not" thread. Although I agree with the OP, I attempted to give what I felt would be a plausible reason as to the "why not". Whether or not you agree with it doesn't change that I felt that it was a plausible reason.
Now a second person is making a similar point and you feel the need to call it a "stretch".
This isn't a case of defending your honor. No one is going to win a prize for being right.
In other words, you don't need to insult other ideas because you feel that your facts don't align with theirs.

I am not looking to start a fight but you can still acknowledge someone else's point with loosing credit on your own.

 

The Raptor wheel/tire combo is definitely a stretch for an Expy but for use as an actual tough truck combo, Ford chose a smaller wheel and taller sidewall.

If you can show me ANY test where a heavier 22" tire/wheel combo gives better performance on an Expy than 20" or even 18" wheels I would be interested in seeing it. Acceleration and braking are both reduced by a heavier tire/wheel combo and a metal rim closer to the outer diameter of a tire is gonna add rotating inertia. And ride and safety margin both suffer with a shorter sidewall.

I do not make a practice of hitting curbs or chuckholes but it happens in the real world. I want an Expy to be a truck. Semi's use 22.5" wheels with tall tires; 22's on an Expy or F150 are for ego.

George

 

Beachums, Wow, sure I sure wasn't trying to insult anyone and I feel strongly that anyone can purchase any vehicle they device for any reason that have . Confused though, above you stated to my previous post " I Agree 100% with your assessment"


Ten years ago you could have never told me that I would own an Expedition with 22" wheels, but I've owned 3 Expeditions since then and the latest has far superior road manors for my driving style than any other.


I consider us all friends here and absolutely did not mean to offend anyone, sorry if I came across that way. I do however stand by my assertion that comparing a Raptor's more single purpose stock wheel/tire combo to a traditional street driven Expedition is a 'stretch'.