Time to think about retiring the Excursion. New England has not been kind to body.

Looking at 2 trucks. both F250 extended cab short bed Lariat 6.2. The 2012 has 200k is in really nice shape and needs nothing. The other is a 2017 with 230k and I assUme was the bosses truck. Doesn't look like the back seat or bed have had anything in them. The 2017 is $15k more.

I have picked up v10s with a lot of miles 160-180k. Are the 6.2 as worry free? Is the 17 $15k better? It does look nicer, but that isn't enough reason to spend more, to me.
Thanks.

 

Any used vehicle is only as good as its maintenance history, that said the 6.2 has the reputation of being a very low maintenance engine with very good durability. Fleets love the things. $17k is a big jump for 30k more miles, one thing the 2017 has going for it is the aluminum body which will stand up to the salt a lot better than steel. What is the truck going to be used for a daily driver, work truck?

 

Mostly daily driver. Occasionally tow a small open trailer and I have 20ish driveways to plow.

 

If your looking to keep something for a while then id go 2017 with the aluminum body. Im also in Taxachusetts and have retired all my trucks due to body rot and never anything mechanical. 6.2 is as great as the 6.8 when it comes to reliability. The 2017 model gets you a 6R100 transmission that has a more favorable first gear ratio. The 6.2L was also revised for 2017 and produces more torque along with a better torque curve.

Nothing against the 2012 at all for your described use case, if faced with the decision I would go with the 2017.

 

I try to keep them as long as I can, so it has to be as rust free as I can find. Forgot that 17+ was aluminum. Have to do some research on that. Would be worth the $15k if the body will last.

 

No matter how great the maintenance was, there is a point where things are just worn out. Neither of those vehicle have much value, except to a current owner who is trying to milk a few more miles out of them before replacing engines, transmissions, etc.

 

True. I just won't drive enough to warrant spending $40k+ on a low mile truck. I might drive it 6-8k miles a year. If I get close to 300k miles before engine or trans goes, thats 10 years for me.

 

Then just get the 2017 and enjoy it.

What I find is that when you get north of 200k miles, even on trucks with reliable engines, it’s everything around them that is on a downward trajectory with the ability to nickel & dime you to death.

Parts & shop labor add up, so if you do repairs yourself that’s a way to save for sure with high mileage vehicles.

 

Have you driven them both? The 2017 will run a lot better.

 

To me it makes a difference how the trucks were driven too. A vehicle that has 200k mostly highway miles will be in better shape mechanically than a 100k mile vehicle that's been driven short distances in town with constant stop and go driving.

 

My previous truck was a 2012 6.2. I bought it with 110k on it, plowed with it for three seasons, had to rebuild the front end a couple of times including wheel bearings, ball joints and two sets of steering parts. I handed it down to my son with nearly 200k on it and he drives it daily to this day, probably around 220k miles, still original trans and engine. Personally there is no way I would pay an extra $15k for five years newer and more miles. The 17 in undoubtable the superior truck being the newer design but that is way to big a gap over a perfectly good steel body truck for me.

 

What are the prices? Check the hours too.


The thing about the 17 is more availability of take out motors etc at the salvage yards.


Both quite high miles.

 

Neither. Looks like both are overpriced. The mileage doesn't scare me on a 6.2 6R140 drivetrain.

 

Both use the same long block, so shouldn't be a difference.

 

Truck prices still seem high in my area. The 12 is $10k the 17 $25k. Trucks with half the miles are almost twice the price.