"Cancel Air Force One, too expensive" (but once the fake news looks the other way, go ahead and build it later. with gold trim, and add a couple of C-17 Globemasters filled with tricked out Excursions like these...)



Our tax dollars at play.

I guess what bothers me is the tail light "protectors". Really? Protection from what? How much rock crawling and Rubicon running are these 25 foot long electronics hearses expected to do? How much does the tail light grille "protector" cost, versus simply replacing the tail light lens in the infinitesimally probable event that somehow these vehicles, traveling in a 5 military force guarded fleet of more than 100 additional vehicles in the largest armada of a motorcade ever utilized by any US president in history... would get scratched?

I get security. I don't get these mods. But I bought them anyway, without even realizing it.

Notwithstanding our deficit, who here doesn't want to see some cool Excursion p*rn?

 

Odd, most 6 door EXs use a set of SD crew rear doors and then the EX rears, not the case on those beasts.

 

 

Pizza cutters

 

That's not an Excursion rear quarter. No glass, no hatch. Looks like they used the bed panel and fabricated a roof and sides. Probably a mess inside. Actually looks like a van rear panel.

 

Almost looks like a 1992-2014 Econoline rear end grafted onto a bunch of Super Duty rear cab sections.

Overkill? Yes... Cool? Definitely...

I do love seeing our tax dollars go to good use.

 

I'm curious as to the inside and what the rear looks like. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have any rear doors at all.

 

Are you saying the 4 rear doors are crew cab doors? Maybe just extended a crew cab pickup and connected the bed and covered it?
Looking more closely I agree they are crew cab doors. The shape isn't correct for EX doors. Probably did start life out as a crew cap SD

 

I think Greenscobie nailed it above, SD crew with an additional rear cab section and an Econoline back half. No EX there I think........

 

Kevlar run-flats, I'd be willing to bet......

 

Since the Excursions use Econoline taillights, the use of Econoline rear quarter panels is not at all far fetched, and would look body matched.

But why bother with all this body matching, and have a vehicle that has the turning radius of cargo ship? With the amount of money poured into body work, why not just use a purpose built military chassis? Why not at the very least use the wide wheel cut angle front end of a chassis cab, in order to increase maneuverability?

The pizza cutter tires are likely run flats. And even if they weren't, that smaller tire size is a lot safer to haul a** on protective detail than the big balloons that pickup truck owners like the looks of on their lifted rigs. Also, the security agents need to quickly ingress and egress from the vehicle to the ground as threats develop. To me the tire choice is very appropriate.

But pouring money into cobbling up portions of civilian vehicles into this patchwork quilt, versus just ordering a military unit already vetted in the battlefield and currently in service, seems like a dubious indulgence.

 

Im thinking the fact that they fabri-cobbled these in the Ford flavor is a compliment. All the other stuff I've been hearing about was from the GM stable.

 

They also use the excursion *** end, not the E-series.

FAKE NEWS, these aren't 6-door excursions, these are the incestuous love child of a Superduty and a Van.

 

From what I can see, it isn't an excursion rear section. It is way to vertical at the rear corner from the tail lights to the roof. I'm going with SD and van mash. I highly doubt there is anything excursion on them.

 

Where did this picture come from? Could be a photoshop conversion, those are a lot cheaper. ????