Hello all,

I was just looking at the reliability ratings for the Excursion (same engines as F250 until 2005) and it was rated unreliable, from what I could tell mainly due to the engine category. It lists 2000-2003, 2000 is above average, 2001-2002 is average and 2003 was below average. But the way CU works their listings, if you have an average or below for the most recent years those are below average for the industry. The tranny on the other hand had good marks for reliability with the exception of 2001 (my trucks build year)

My question is why the low ratings for the engines? Is it the Diesels in 03 that dragged down the average? Is it the spitting spark plug issue or a combo of the 2?

While I realize many of you don't like CU, I have tracked them over the years and they have been pretty accurate. They give the previous style F150 high marks over the entire rating period 1997-2004 for engine, tranny etc. It was only beat by the Tundra for reliability markings. Unfortunately the New F150 is not getting the same high marks as the old.

Anyway, any ideas why the low ratings for the Excursion/F250 engines? I'm asking because my warranty just expired on my 2001 F250 and I'm curious what to expect as age catches up with my unwarranted engine/tranny combo.

 

I don't believe much in CU. Everything they recommended to buy that I indeed bought was a let down.

As far as the engines go, It has to be the 6.0 debut. What a nightmare for the service writers (and owners). I can't imagine how many service appointments the average owner had with that engine. Heck there had to be at least 3 reflashes alone, not including turbo issues, oil leaks, intercooler tubes and injectors. It's amazing it didn't have a "worst" rating.

 

Tony,

CR probably would have picked Kerry and best bet for president.

I have 2003 F250 with the 6.0 and auto and have almost 30,000 miles on it and have had no trouble.

I bought a car in 1979 based on CR and lost my shirt on it when it came time to trade. That's the last time I read the book.

 

CU is the perfect reason sites like this prosper. At least here you can be assured there is no financial considerations to jaundice the opinions, and you are seeing real world experience not some clinical tests.

 

I always thought that those reliability ratings in CR where taken from the annual questionaires they send to subscribers.

I know in my case one of the few times I returned my survey to CR was because of an S10 Blazer that I bought new; and believe me it wasn't to give it a high rating.

I wouldn't be surprised if these Excursion ratings aren't being skewed by a handful of dissatisfied respondents (or whatever the minimum survey return threshold for publication CR uses.)

If I remember right you can give a specific vehicle area on the survey a bad rating without elaborating on your specific complaint.

 

Up until a couple years ago, CR listed their reader's responses separately for each brand of vehicle. So, you'd see two separate listings for the Chevy S-10 and GMC Sonoma. Some years, the brakes were worse on the Chevy, or maybe the GMC had more problems with the A/C. When someone pointed out that these were MECHANICALLY-IDENTICAL trucks built on the same assembly line, the only difference being the grilles, then CR started "averaging" the results from similar vehicles. But for a number of years, people were taking CR's advice and buying the Chevy because it was more "reliable" than the GMC, or vice versa. Until 2 years ago, they were recommending the Sable over the Taurus, because it, too, was "more reliable." Same car, same mechanics, built on the same assembly lines. So much for CR's accuracy in determining reliability.

 

Sorry, I subscribed to CU or CR for several years and never came out on one of their best buys. I guess that makes them "UNRELIABLE"

BE

 

CU accepts no advertising or money from the conpanies whose products they test, so they have no financial motivation for giving any product a rating, either good or bad.

 

No one's questioning that, it's the accuracy of their survey data that is questionable.

 

I got a 6.0 with no problems.

 

I am aware of that and didn't mean to infer that they did, but many other publications that "test" vehicles do take advertising dollars and are clearly cheerleaders for the manufacturers. CU performs clinical tests when they test anything which I would hope you would agree are no match for what the people on this forum do to their trucks on a daily basis. Personally I would put more stock in what is posted here by people who IMO have nothing to gain, but are just looking for answers.

 

CU has been off of the mark on several products I used the CU evaluation for! I have 3 friends that bought the 03 with the new motor. 1 still has his and has had no problems for almost 65k and the other 2 had so much trouble that they both drive the Cummins now and say never again on a new product launch! They even questioned me about buying my 05!

 

Yeah, I do agree real-world tests are better than lab tests. Your previous post just read as though you were under the impression CU based their reports on who paid the most for advertising. No harm intended....

 

None taken