1998-2002 Lincoln Navigator

In today's brave new world of five-buck gas and energy-related panic, it borders on dangerous to admit to lusting after a three-ton station wagon. In fact, the desirability of such a vehicle would never have occurred to me but for the 10,000 miles I spent behind the wheel of, first a 1998, and then a 2002 Lincoln Navigator.

Most of those--95 percent--were long-haul miles, with the goal of getting a large enclosed trailer filled with 3,000 pounds of motorcycle from one edge of the country to the other. The rest were in around-town stop-and-go traffic in various cities, towns, and villages.

Those Navigators belonged to one of my riding buddies, and when he allowed as how he'd rather fly, and have someone else haul the trailer to Daytona Bike Week in February of 1998, I volunteered without a moment's hesitation. (Yeah, we trailered our bikes. Sometimes in a blizzard. Get over it.) That first trip, behind the wheel of what could be viewed as nothing more than a tarted-up Ford Expedition (which, itself, was a roofed-in Ford F-150 pickup) was a revelation.

I had driven Ford pickups and Expeditions, and found them pleasant enough, but nothing about them inspired anything approaching Car Lust. The Navigator, by contrast, grabbed me right away.

First, it was way quieter than the Fords were. This is always good for a few ticks on positive side of the automotive equation. Second, and equally important when you're about to spend days behind the wheel, it was spectacularly comfortable. I just looked at my trip notes from that first drive, and here's what I wrote about the seats:

 

"It doesn't matter where I put this beast's enormous leather throne. Regardless of the position--all the way back, all the way forward, tilted, reclined, upright, or whatever--I'm comfortable. Of course, this is impossible, but there it is."
 

This was true of the '98, and even more true of the '02 that replaced it, for the newer example was equipped with seat coolers that blew cold air through perforations in the leather. It was heavenly.

Then there's the ride, which was way more Lincoln than Ford truck. Much credit for this goes to the air bags used in place of the steel springs found on the donor Expedition. Rough pavement, bumps, potholes, and frost heaves were simply flattened by the Navigator's suspension. Meanwhile, the wagon's extensive soundproofing made all of the suspension's hard work sound like it was happening somewhere in the far distance.

I can't testify to the Nav's high-speed handling in the twisties, because I'm not an idiot. I call it a wagon, but know, deep within, that it's a high center-of-gravity SUV. As such, it has to be driven with respect, along with an awareness of the laws of both physics and unintended consequences. At prudent speeds--i.e., not much higher than the posted limits--it handled the curves without any drama.

The '98 Navigator's towing capabilities were limited by the 230-horsepower engine fitted to those first-year examples. The '99 debuted with 260 horsepower, and midway through the model year it was bumped up to an even 300. Having towed 4,500-pound loads with both 230- and 300-horsepower versions, I have to say that more is better. With the '98, I was always aware of the trailer as a load on the engine. With the '02, towing was effortless.

In fact, driving the Navigator, in general, was effortless. This is only surprising until you realize that, despite its apparent bulk, the Navigator is shorter (by seven inches) than a Crown Victoria. That, along with the Master of All He Surveys driving position, makes for a vehicle that's easy to maneuver in tight spaces, and for which to find a parking spot.

And what about mileage? That's a good question, and one that doesn't have a very good answer, at least in the absolute. Towing 4,500 pounds, the Navigator averaged 9.9 MPG. Unburdened, I recorded 13 around town, and 16 on the road. Not good. But look at it from another standpoint--driving a Navigator 12,000 miles per year will burn about 1,000 gallons of gas. Over the same mileage, my sister's 2005 CRV burned 500 gallons.

The question then becomes one of priorities. Is it worth an extra $2,500/year to drive a Navigator rather than a CRV? To me, it is, especially since those first-generation Navigators can be had for chump change, while CRVs are a pretty costly proposition. And the CRV doesn't come close to  the Navigator's luxury, comfort, towing capacity, and interior space.

Finally, there's the related question of wasting a non-renewable resource. Here's my take on that. The sooner oil becomes real-world scarce (as opposed to just being expensive), the sooner we'll get serious about finding a viable replacement. In fact, it doesn't take too much of a stretch to view the ownership of a Navigator as the fulfillment of one's patriotic duty.

--David Drucker

Note from Chris: Okay, everybody--we've already checked "Massive Sprawling SUV debate" off our list of things to do on this blog, and I think we did it pretty well. If anybody missed out and wants to revisit, check these two posts:
http://www.carlustblog.com/2008/04/car-lust--1973.html (the comments)
http://www.carlustblog.com/2008/04/suv-fracas.html

I'd ask that anybody who comments on this post refrain from covering this well-trodden and blood-soaked ground. Don't refight the SUV war. Let's actually comment on what we like and dislike about the Navigator above and beyond its status as an SUV. Either that or let's indulge in the traditional amusing irrelevancy that we all enjoy from time to time.

Comments

[Chris Hafner on July 28, 2008 at 10:23 AM]

You're obviously a great writer, David, because you almost, *almost* overcame my innate biased hatred of Navigators. I can understand the appeal, so I will stay my wrath on the blasphemous use of the words station wagon.

[Cookie the Dog's Owner on July 28, 2008 at 10:53 AM]

I am not a truck person. I will never be a truck person. However, I must respect the Navigator as a piece of engineering, because it does what it sets out to do, and does it well and reliably.

[Steaming Pile on July 28, 2008 at 10:56 AM]

Aw, and I was going to sing the praises of the Penske box van I rented this past weekend. It was delightfully useful, and got 14 MPG hauling 2000 pound pallets of wood pellets. Maybe this was because it was an actual truck instead of a truck-thing trying to be a luxury yacht. Not only does it haul more than a Lincoln Navigator, both in terms of volume and weight capacity (3500 lbs. as quoted by the agent), it gets better mileage while doing it. Even better than that, I can rent one for the day with unlimited mileage for those rare times when I need a big truck, while still driving my compact car around town getting 35 MPG without breaking a sweat.

[Rob the SVX guy on July 28, 2008 at 11:11 AM]

>cracks knuckles<

I'll be back in a little bit.

[meccano on July 28, 2008 at 12:04 PM]

OK, I'll bite and play along. There are some people who may require a vehicle the size of the Navigator. I must note that every time I see a Nav a diminutive woman hauling nothing around all by her lonesome is driving it. At the risk of being politically incorrect, I would say that in second place, the most common use of the Nav I see is by the young single African American male replant with requisite bling and shiny wheels. Oil, as a resource that our country requires, is certainly important when discussing mpg, but what about pollution? Let's pretend that global warming doesn't exist. Under such a scenario, aren't people still interested in clean air and water? Cars pollute whether you think that global warming is real or not. We certainly have moved away from that discussion as the global warming debate dominates the news. It doesn't seem that the Navigator, in the uses that I have noted, would really help slow pollution compared to a more practical means of transportation; I get it that a car lust blog is hardly the place to discuss a practical means of transportation. Honestly, it just seems rather silly to drive one. I feel compelled to mention that they are dangerous when compared to cars. Not only for the driver who thinks they are station wagons, but also for the poor souls that are being plowed into by said Navigator. I’m not trying to tell anyone what to do and if you want one well then, go for it. As my grandmother would say, "you people do what you want to, cause that is what you're gonna do anyway." I realize that you saying we can only start to conserve oil once it has been almost depleted (and therefore one is being patriotic by driving a gas pig) is snarky and tongue in check, but, like I said, I’ll bite and play along…umm, no its not AND there are other issues that surround the popularity of such vehicles besides sucking the (oil) well dry.

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame on July 28, 2008 at 01:07 PM]

Then again, the people-miles or cargo-miles ability of the Navigator far oustrips that of many supposedly fuel-effecient cars.
I can tell you for a fac that if I'd used a Honda Civic to try to go camping last week, the 3 trips I would have had to take would have wasted more gas and polluted fare more than the one trip I took in my (6-cyl) Explorer.

True, there are some aspects to the Gas Guzzler argument I agree with: I used to snicker at my ex-mother-in-law for driving her aluminum cans to the recycling center in her Buick Roadmaster.

I guess the problem is that too many people just like big cars. And too many people have too much of their life centered around big people movers. We don't have a viable train system like Europe, because the US is just too big, and our population centers are just too sparsely located. I know this, because I live in the largest city NOT located on the Eisenhower Interstate System: San Angelo, TX. It's really difficult for two people to even make to/from a regional airport with a normal amount of luggage in the current Euro-style sports sedan (though I still love 'em). Four people and their luggage? Impossible.

It was an attempt to legislate away big cars and force everyone to drive small cars that led to the rise of the SUV. People want what people want. Trends and styles come and go. The SUV is on the way out due to gas prices, partly...but also due to the driving excitement in today's sports sedans. But for all their superiority over SUVs in effeciency, shouldn't we be angry at Sports Sedan drivers because of the waste and danger those represent to Yaris, Fit, and Vesta drivers?

People who want SUVs should have them. People who feel threatened by SUVs should practice better defensive driving skills. After all, there's nothing an SUV can do to a passenger car that a tractor-trailer wouldn't do 10 times worse. I don't see Rob defecating on a Peterbuilt.

...actually, I don't ever want to see Rob defecate, period. But that's beside the point.

[Anthony Cagle on July 28, 2008 at 01:16 PM]

Not another SUV throwdown. . . .

*runs screaming from the room*

[Anthony Cagle on July 28, 2008 at 01:16 PM]

Not another SUV throwdown. . . .

*runs screaming from the room*

[Rob the SVX guy on July 28, 2008 at 01:26 PM]

Alright. You know.... I could go on and on about how incredibly stupid the Navigator is, but I'd just be repeating myself. We've done this before, and it's quite clear where I stand. It's a truck, with some extra seats, sound deadening, and a bit of leather. It handles like ass, brakes like ass, accelerates like ass, and consumes gas like a pig. It's driven by mainly soccer moms and douchebag suburbanites who want to seem cool despite needing a minivan. They rarely use signals, they hog the left lane, they are impossible to see around when you're stuck behind them, and they're deadly to everyone else on the road.

http://www.carlustblog.com/2008/04/suv-fracas.html

Read that. Again. Since it didn't sink in the first time. Most people don't tow. Most people don't offroad. The majority of these things are driven by gangsters or soccer moms. This means only a small percentage of them are being used properly, for towing or offroading. As such, in general, they pretty much epitomize the worst possible traits of any vehicle:

Poor handling, braking, acceleration, response, mpg, safety, and emissions. Along with the H2, they literally defined "excess", and not in a good way. I hate them. As gas prices continue to rise, the resale value of these things will continue to plummet, until they can be purchased by teenagers and others with very low income. With limited funds to maintain these vehicles, they'll only grow more and more dangerous. I wish you all luck surviving the coming years of poorly maintained SUV mayhem.

[Rob the SVX guy on July 28, 2008 at 01:49 PM]

I won't defecate on a peterbuilt because unlike SUVs, they require a CDL to operate. You need special training to operate a vehicle so large and heavy, but for some reason a 110lb housewife who yaps on her cellphone constantly is legally able to drive a H2, which has a GVWR of 8500lbs? Come on!

Tractor trailers and other large utility vehicles are a whole different ballgame, because they not only have operators skilled enough to drive them, but they are SERVING A PURPOSE. Take the "Rob's anti SUV challenge!". On your way to work, count the number of SUVs. Now count the number of SUVs towing something, or here's a freebie: Any evidence of actual offroading. I don't mean brushguards or equipment, but actual mud, scratches, and the like. Take the first number, and if the second number (towing+offroading) is even 1/4 of the first number, YOU WIN! If not, it just further proves my point.

And no, I don't have a problem with sports sedans. They're relatively efficient if driven conservatively, and their great braking/handling abilities keep them out of accidents. This is why I like my SVX. The performance abilities above a regular car also make it a safer vehicle. Also, if a sports sedan DOES get into an accident, the bumper height is at least compatible, unlike most SUVs.

[Steaming Pile on July 28, 2008 at 01:52 PM]

@Nate - "People who feel threatened by SUVs should practice better defensive driving skills. After all, there's nothing an SUV can do to a passenger car that a tractor-trailer wouldn't do 10 times worse."

And people who feel threatened by NRA lifetime member types (and gang-bangers, drug dealers, and assorted hoodlums) should wear body armor. Do you have any idea how ridiculous your comments sound?

While we're on the subject, Nobody is going to let you drive their $100,000 big rig unless you can prove you can handle one. I doubt any bank will loan you $100,000 for one unless you can prove your credentials, either. That means extensive training and a commercial driver's license. No such requirements exist for drivers of sport-utility vehicles. Yet.

I tend to agree with Rob on this subject. At least the 70s land barges had some pretense of (often excessive) style that even the most opulent SUV lacks utterly. A truck with 500 pounds of chrome and leather seats is still a truck, but when you spend 60 large on one, you aren't taking it out and getting it dirty; you're being seen on a stepladder washing and waxing it on Saturday mornings. How many of those passers-by are impressed, and how many think you're a pretentious douchebag? YMMV.

[David Drucker on July 28, 2008 at 01:56 PM]

Ah, the sharp tang of youthful self-righteousness! It inspires me to walk down memory lane, revisiting a time when I, too, knew everything and was eager to impose that knowledge on all and sundry.

Here's something to consider: Mention a '74 Dodge Monaco -- a pollution-spewing deathtrap even when new -- and everyone swoons. Mention a Lamborghini -- a 10mpg toy of questionable reliability and near-zero practicality -- and everyone gets a chubby. But cast a glance at a pickup-based station wagon that attempts to provide comfort in addition to capacity and folks go nuts.

[Chris Hafner on July 28, 2008 at 02:03 PM]

Okay, everybody - we've already checked "Massive Sprawling SUV debate" off our list of things to do on this blog, and I think we did it pretty well. If anybody missed out and wants to revisit, check these two posts:
http://www.carlustblog.com/2008/04/car-lust--1973.html (the comments)
http://www.carlustblog.com/2008/04/suv-fracas.html

I'd ask that anybody who comments on this post refrain from covering this well-trodden and blood-soaked ground - don't refight the SUV war, let's actually comment on what we like and dislike about the Navigator above and beyond its status as an SUV. Either that or the traditional amusing irrelevancy that we all enjoy from time to time.

Here, I'll start. I like that it's still a real truck - it still has real truck capability in that it has lots of power, can tow things, and wouldn't be wholly helpless off road. What I don't like is that it has been beaten badly with the ugly stick, and I think the interior is a bit chintzy.

[Rob the SVX guy on July 28, 2008 at 02:08 PM]

You mean a dodge monaco, which had bumpers the same height as everything else, you could see around, and drove like a large car? You mean a monaco, that when it was sold, consumed gas like most other vehicles? Vintage 1970s Detroit iron was only a family hauler when it was the 1970s. I don't have a problem with them, you never see them today. I'd also like to add that the stupid freaking navigator probably manages worse MPG than the Monaco.

You mean a lamborghini that is so impractical, unattainable, and expensive that you almost never see one? Boy, not really a problem there. Last time I checked Joe Schmoe wasn't driving a lambo everyday, nor was he trading in his family sedan for one. Nobody hauls kids around in a lambo. Supercars are NOT, nor have they EVER been a family car replacement. There was never a time period when the middle class was using supercars to haul Timmy and Sally to school. And even if they did, the incredible handling, braking, and acceleration would reward a careful driver with superior abilities to avoid an accident, unlike an SUV.

SUVs are not the same thing as a CDL-required big rig. SUVs are not the same thing as the standard for a car designed almost 40 years ago, though they do handle, brake, accelerate, and consume gas in relatively similar doses (yay progress!). SUVs are not the same thing as supercars, almost nobody owns them, and they are driven very rarely, and are almost never daily drivers.

Your "points" are [deleted, insulting].

[David Drucker on July 28, 2008 at 02:09 PM]

Steaming Pile: "That means extensive training and a commercial driver's license"

On June 17, a friend of mine posted this on her MySpace page: "holy crap, I drove a truck... I did really well for someone who never drove a truck before."

On July 3 she posted "I got my CDL!"

She is now piloting an 18-wheeler on the same roads you and I drive. Maybe she's good at it.

On the question of SUV safety vis-a-vis other vehicles, I refer you to Pat Bedard's column on the subject: http://tinyurl.com/5fv8b4

Keep 'em coming, kids!

[Rob the SVX guy on July 28, 2008 at 02:29 PM]

Okay Chris.

I like the fact that all the people who drove SUVs the past decade are starting to realize how stupid and brainwashed by advertising they were. I like the fact that people are waking up to more efficient vehicles, with better handling, braking, and acceleration. I like the fact that more manufacturers are using the ring to tune their cars, and catering to the enthusiast.

I like that the Navigator, and all of it's other overweight supersized brethren are a dying breed and aren't cool anymore.

[meccano on July 28, 2008 at 02:52 PM]

Steaming Pile asks why people here don't rant about a Lambos or '74 Dodge Monacos. Everyone must be a hypocrite? Right? Well, dah, it because no one drives those. Are the roads where you live really congested with Lambos & '74 Dodge anythings? Not where I live. And while we are on the subject...there are no 18 wheelers wildly driven at twice the speed limit by soccer moms on their cells phone on my street...last time I checked anyway. The Navigators where I live are like untreated genital herpes. Also, its a dumb argument to compare professional driven commercial vehicles and the one off old oddball or new exotic gas pigs to a best selling mainstream type of SUV. Even the hardest of the hard core global warming types aren't saying that if we could only get all the '74 Dodge Monacos off the road the world would be a better place. OK, bad argument. Maybe it would be.

[Chris Hafner on July 28, 2008 at 02:56 PM]

Okay - any more meta-SUV comments and I'm shutting down comments on this thread. I get that it's a fun debate, but we've already done it.

[sillypickle on July 28, 2008 at 03:47 PM]

I have nothing to say about SUVs...instead, I'd like to point out that I share a beverage of choice with someone who was in the Navigator pictured: Mountain Dew!

[Jim in KC on July 28, 2008 at 04:43 PM]

Yeah, it seems a lot of people want to refight the SUV debate. Not me - I think Chris did this one exactly right. The blog isn't named "Which car is best?" It's named "Car Lust". I can understand lust for this machine, just as I can freely admit I'd never own one. Chris got to drive it without owning it, which makes it an obvious object of lust without responsibility.
Now, I must keep the pot boiling. Several years ago, Car and Driver had an article on the best road trip foods and drinks. Like the previous poster, they picked Mountain Dew as the long-form trip beverage of choice. I'll quibble with Chris on two things: I drink Diet Dew, and twelve ounces at a time isn't enough. I recommend the Quik-Trip Squart, as much for its long, flexible straw as for its 32-ounce capacity. The straw allows you to drink without taking your eyes off the road - drinking from a can involves a dangerous neck tilt. At the turn of the millenium, the Squart 2000 featured finger grips and changed color when cold liquid was put into it - surely an object of drink-bottle lust. If you don't have Quik-Trip in your part of the country, drive to where there is one. I would also suggest Corn Nuts, in either Barbecue or the harder-to-find Nacho Cheese flavor. With Diet Dew and Corn Nuts, you're good until the gas tank runs out. On the Navigator, this might not be very long . . .

[Chris Hafner on July 28, 2008 at 04:56 PM]

Thanks, Jim - though David Drucker wrote it, not me.

Road snacks? Ah, road snacks. One of the best things about a road trip. My initial vote would be Smartfood popcorn, or Taco John's softshells. This might just deserve its own post.

[sillypickle on July 28, 2008 at 04:58 PM]

My problem usually is that my tank fills up before the car's is empty. I once drank a liter of Mountain Dew on a long road trip in Arizona, and 30 minutes later I had to pee so bad I thought I was gonna die. It was about an hour more before we finally found somewhere we could stop...

[Brian on July 28, 2008 at 05:20 PM]

Ooooo! Look at all the cup-holders!

[Mochi Mochi on July 28, 2008 at 05:58 PM]

I'm not interested in fighting the SUV war again. That time has come and gone - and we are done. I would like to point out that the pictured Navigator is red - much like a bull fighter's cape. The relative restraint (or exhaustion) for an SUV ThrowDown II is commendable.

Besides the opportunity for fighting about other things like air-conditioned seats is always ripe! There's nothing like an air conditioned seat to bring my calvanist blood to a boil. The only thing that dampens that rage, is my idle speculation about the ducting, mechanics, and control system to drive such a modern marvel. It must be a nightmare to work on.

But the thing that really boggles my mind is the comment about "3,000 pounds of motorcycle". My god man! How many motorcycles were you hauling? It could not be 1... please don't say 2!!! I'm all for big bore motorcycles, though my preferences drift towards the European (Norton, BSA, Triumph, MotoGuzzi, and Ducatti) and Japanese spectrum. My bike was a Yamaha SR500. A single cylinder 500. Kick start only. Dry sump. Looked like a BSA Gold Star. Nearly infinite cornering clearance, and a dry weight of 320lbs. I cannot imagine a motorcycle weighing more than twice that of my SR500. So I'm guessing you were hauling either 10 500cc bikes or 5 1000cc bikes - am I right ? ;)

Great write-up David. May damnation fall upon those air-conditioned seats. By the way I'm only a calvanist in the Calvin and Hobbs sense of the word.

[Anthony Cagle on July 28, 2008 at 07:22 PM]

The Nav is probably the best looking of the big SUVs. I always fancied taking one of those off into the various mountains around here and camping right out of the back. No tent, no camper, just throw in gear and sleep in the back.