Ford Expedition vs Nissan Armada: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Ford Expedition burns about $3,100 of fuel annually against $3,850 for the Nissan Armada. That $750 yearly gap compounds to roughly $3,750 over five years and $6,000 over eight — often more than the price difference between two trims of the same vehicle, and the single largest running-cost line item separating these two.

City and highway economy: the Ford Expedition leads in both cycles — 17 mpg city and 24 mpg highway against 16 and 20 mpg — so its fuel-efficiency advantage holds whether you commute in traffic or cover long highway miles.

Powertrain choice: the Ford Expedition is recorded with 3 distinct engine configurations (SIDI & PFI, SIDI, SIDI; Stop-Start), the Nissan Armada with 4 (SIDI, SIDI; MDPV, SIDI; LDT). Across 49 recorded Ford Expedition configurations and 29 for the Nissan Armada, the wider the engine spread the more the real-world fuel efficiency depends on which version you actually buy, so check the specific model year and drivetrain rather than the headline number.

Drivetrain and class: the Ford Expedition is offered with Part-time 4-Wheel Drive, Rear-Wheel Drive, the Nissan Armada with Rear-Wheel Drive, 4-Wheel Drive. All-wheel drive typically costs one to two mpg combined against the same vehicle in front- or rear-wheel drive, which is worth remembering when the gap between these two is small. The EPA classes them as Standard Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD and Standard Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Ford Expedition emits 441 g/mile of CO2 versus 497 g/mile for the Nissan Armada. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.