2000 Lincoln Navigator - what to look for?

One of those has popped up locally with reasonable mileage and at least according to the CL description and what the owner is telling me, it appears to be in good condition.

So far research has shown that the air suspension on these can be troublesome, anything else over and above regular maintenance items?

I have this vague recollection that the DOHC mod motor doesn't have the "spark plug thread" problem the SOHC one has, or am I making this up?

There just aren't as many twincams to launch plugs. I've seen it.

In reply to BoxheadTim: Things to fix on a 2000 Ford SUV. Heater core,Baljoints Uper and lowre,HVAC blean air door.

What to look for? Gold chains with clocks on them, bulk deals on gasoline

In reply to GameboyRMH:

We already have a 'vette, that covers the gold chains angle .

Just came back from looking at it, seems to be in decent shape, drives OK, front wanders a little at speed (either alignment or balljoint). Heater works OK and no smell of coolant, so I'm assuming heater core is good.

I'll call my mechanic of least distrust tomorrow and see if they can check it over, if the owner sells it before I can get it checked and make an offer so be it - it's nice but not exactly something I absolutely have to have.

Check the rear control arms! The powder coat starts to separate from the steel, then water gets between the two, then they rust in half. I'd say 90% of the Navigators/Expeditions that come through the shop that I work at at least have soft spots in them. They're horrible.

16vCorey wrote: Check the rear control arms! The powder coat starts to separate from the steel, then water gets between the two, then they rust in half. I'd say 90% of the Navigators/Expeditions that come through the shop that I work at at least have soft spots in them. They're horrible.

WHS...

This is what the rear control arms looked like on our '99 Expedition last year...

Karacticus wrote: WHS... This is what the rear control arms looked like on our '99 Expedition last year...

Yeah, that's not good.

Fortunately we're outside the rust belt and the car came up here from the Bay Area, but I'll make sure that my mechanic has a good look at those arms.

Some Jeep Libertys and Dodge Nitros have a recall for that rear CA rust thing.

Um...keep looking...for something else.

In reply to Appleseed:

Care to elaborate? I actually kinda sort liked it in an "OK for an SUV" way, but I'm still waiting for the mechanic to check it over.

If that doesn't work out I've got a line on an '01 BB Yukon XL, but that's got a ton more miles on it.

I love our old Expedition, it has 240K on it now, rust is winning out but it still runs, tows, has cold air, warm heat, good brakes and plenty of towing ability with seating for 8.

Hell of a deal for $1600 I paid for it.

Consistently get 17 mpg in all conditions, heck of a lot of fun in the snow

Parts that are specific to the Nav are expensive. 5.4 crammed in the truck is not the easiest to work on. Requires premium and the 5.4 is not what I'd call fuel efficient. I think my mom was pulling down 10-11 mpg in traffic. Severe depreciation, although they may have bottomed out by now. My mom paid 38,000 and got 1,800 when she got rid of it.

I owned one. Horrible mpg, I was getting 8 in city and 15 in highway. Turn on all fans and ride it around, mine had an electrical problem I couldn't pinpoint. Lights would shut off and fans too. Air suspension failed quickly on mine. Sold it soon after, only owned it for a year. Would not buy another one.

The mpg is pretty much where I expected it to be and also pretty much where the competition is. Fortunately even if I use it as a commuter I'll still be mostly on the open road - my commute is probably 3 miles worth of city driving before I hit the highway.

The more interesting "issue" is that I didn't research what sort of prices they go for and it turns out the owner is asking 150% KBB "Excellent" private party. Unless they're willing to come down significantly I'll be giving this one a miss and will be looking at oversized GM products again.

Appleseed wrote: Parts that are specific to the Nav are expensive. 5.4 crammed in the truck is not the easiest to work on. Requires premium and the 5.4 is not what I'd call fuel efficient. I think my mom was pulling down 10-11 mpg in traffic. Severe depreciation, although they may have bottomed out by now. My mom paid 38,000 and got 1,800 when she got rid of it.

Mine is a 5.4 and I get 17mpg and has never used premium

I paid $1600 for it

COP failures ruin the mileage, if it starts to miss, find the bad one and swap it, $54.00 @ but I only change them one at a time, 3 so far in 50K on a truck with 250K that tows a lot

Oh and to back me up here is the EPA link

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1997_Ford_Expedition.shtml

IIRC the Expedition uses the single cam mod motor though, doesn't it. EPA does list premium for the 2000 Navigator. That was a surprise I could've done without, but then again I haven't heard back from the sellers since I pointed out their slightly inflated price.

A little research and I found

Upgrades came to the Navigator after only one model year in the interest of refining the vehicle and keeping it competitive. The 1999 Navigator initially came with the same 5.4 L SOHC V8 used previously, though it was revised to produce 260 hp (190 kW) at 4500 rpm and 345 lb·ft (468 N·m) of torque at 2300 rpm. Arriving later in the same model year replacing this engine was a new 5.4 L DOHC V8 that produced 300 hp (220 kW) at 5000 rpm and 355 lb·ft (481 N·m) of torque at 2750 rpm. The new DOHC V8 was marketed under the name InTech, making it the second Lincoln engine, after the 4.6 L DOHC V8 of the Lincoln Mark VIII, to use this name.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/16367.shtml

Seems it averaged 13 with the DOHC, and is premium, you learn something every day.

Well, the deal fell through. Time to talk to the owner of the big block 2001 suburban that's for sale around here. That'll probably do 13mpg, too.

BoxheadTim wrote: Well, the deal fell through. Time to talk to the owner of the big block 2001 suburban that's for sale around here. That'll probably do 13mpg, too.

Good luck with that, my 2003 6.0 Suburban 2500 gets about 12 mixed, 14-15 highway. The 8.1 is supposedly about 2 MPG worse. At least it takes regular.

I was guessing around 13mpg highway, basically same as the previous generation's big block.

This one might be interesting from a GRM perspective because it's equipped with the factory heavy duty tow package so it can legally tow up to 12800lbs...