Just want to make one comment on the Explorer review you recently posted- i made a comment over there, too- you may want to check which powertrain it has. The specs that are show on the right has a normal 3.5l engine, but Joe's review talks of a 3.5l EcoBoost motor in it.
I was not aware that the 3.5l EcoBoost was going to be in the Explorer, so it may help to check it, and make sure which engine you all have in that truck.
It would be awesome that the EcoBoost was in it, make me quite happy. 
I thought the whole point of going to the Taurus chassis as so that they could put the EcoBoost 3.5L/AWD SHO drivetrain in there.
ReverendDexter wrote: I thought the whole point of going to the Taurus chassis as so that they could put the EcoBoost 3.5L/AWD SHO drivetrain in there.
remove the turbo and you'd more more correct. The main change to that chassis was the base V6 and the AWD trans that would go with it- that combo is significantly more efficient than the older V6 RWD set up.
A turbo V6 version, as far as I know, not in the cards. Maybe- it's a drop in, and is a GREAT calibration, if I do say so myself. 
Thanks. Someone's making the correction right now.
alfadriver wrote: A turbo V6 version, as far as I know, not in the cards. Maybe- it's a drop in, and is a GREAT calibration, if I do say so myself.
It just seems to obvious to not do it. Sell it as an SVT, market it against the SRT8 Cherokee/Durango as the ecologically-friendly bat E36 M3 insane SUV.
In reply to ReverendDexter:
Could make a rather nice tow package. But there are technical issues...
Then again, I'm not so sold on the sport SUV market as being relevant. Unless the goal is to sell <1000 units a year.
One of the reviews I read noted that moving away from body-on-frame has made for a noticeable reduction in interior space, despite the fact that it still has a really big foot print. Is that something that you guys noticed as well?
alfadriver wrote:ReverendDexter wrote: I thought the whole point of going to the Taurus chassis as so that they could put the EcoBoost 3.5L/AWD SHO drivetrain in there.remove the turbo and you'd more more correct. The main change to that chassis was the base V6 and the AWD trans that would go with it- that combo is significantly more efficient than the older V6 RWD set up. A turbo V6 version, as far as I know, not in the cards. Maybe- it's a drop in, and is a GREAT calibration, if I do say so myself.
When I first heard of the new Explorer and the thought of the 3.5L Ecoboost, I knew immediately what I wanted to replace my old reliable 98 Exploder, alas, no dice.
I suspect the awd transmission can't handle the output?
NGTD wrote:alfadriver wrote:When I first heard of the new Explorer and the thought of the 3.5L Ecoboost, I knew immediately what I wanted to replace my old reliable 98 Exploder, alas, no dice. I suspect the awd transmission can't handle the output?ReverendDexter wrote: I thought the whole point of going to the Taurus chassis as so that they could put the EcoBoost 3.5L/AWD SHO drivetrain in there.remove the turbo and you'd more more correct. The main change to that chassis was the base V6 and the AWD trans that would go with it- that combo is significantly more efficient than the older V6 RWD set up. A turbo V6 version, as far as I know, not in the cards. Maybe- it's a drop in, and is a GREAT calibration, if I do say so myself.
It handles it fine- as in the SHO/Flex as well as the Lincoln MKS/MKT.
It's very much a no brainer drop in for the Explorer, which is why I'm paying attention to it. We wondered why not, and then IF it happens, it's not minor to a group of co- workers, since we did the FW/AWD EcoBoost development.
I wish I knew why it's not planned. IMHO, it would be a better "sport" kind of package in an Edge. Which would be an even better drop in, since it's lighter than a Taurus/MKS.
OTOH, the 2.0l I4 EcoBoost IS planned for the Explorer.
alfadriver wrote:NGTD wrote:It handles it fine- as in the SHO/Flex as well as the Lincoln MKS/MKT. It's very much a no brainer drop in for the Explorer, which is why I'm paying attention to it. We wondered why not, and then IF it happens, it's not minor to a group of co- workers, since we did the FW/AWD EcoBoost development. I wish I knew why it's not planned. IMHO, it would be a better "sport" kind of package in an Edge. Which would be an even better drop in, since it's lighter than a Taurus/MKS. OTOH, the 2.0l I4 EcoBoost IS planned for the Explorer.alfadriver wrote:When I first heard of the new Explorer and the thought of the 3.5L Ecoboost, I knew immediately what I wanted to replace my old reliable 98 Exploder, alas, no dice. I suspect the awd transmission can't handle the output?ReverendDexter wrote: I thought the whole point of going to the Taurus chassis as so that they could put the EcoBoost 3.5L/AWD SHO drivetrain in there.remove the turbo and you'd more more correct. The main change to that chassis was the base V6 and the AWD trans that would go with it- that combo is significantly more efficient than the older V6 RWD set up. A turbo V6 version, as far as I know, not in the cards. Maybe- it's a drop in, and is a GREAT calibration, if I do say so myself.
Well, I am going to buy one in a few years - have to get the wife's car paid off first, so I guess I can keep hoping!
FYI - You CAN get the 3.5L EcoBoost Turbo / AWD drivetrain in the MUCH better looking 7-passenger Flex.
Javelin wrote: FYI - You CAN get the 3.5L EcoBoost Turbo / AWD drivetrain in the MUCH better looking 7-passenger Flex.
Flex makes me want to throw up in my mouth.
Remember the first Explorer? Based on the Ranger mini-truck the first version was small, cheap and utilitarian
I would like to see this again.
Javelin wrote: FYI - You CAN get the 3.5L EcoBoost Turbo / AWD drivetrain in the MUCH better looking 7-passenger Flex.
I like the looks of the MKT better. Especially from the inside. But the Flex has grown on me- and they drive nice, too.
IMHO, the SHO, Flex, and MKT are all nicer drivers than the MKS, and we may remember all the fury that was brought up when the MKS did the mountain climb... It was pretty quick.
but i am biased. a little.
In reply to NGTD:
They'll be around for a while.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to NGTD: They'll be around for a while.
That's what I figure since the 3rd gen (like mine) ran from 95-2001 and the 4th gen ran from 02-10.
neon4891 wrote:Remember the first Explorer? Based on the Ranger mini-truck the first version was small, cheap and utilitarianI would like to see this again.
the first Explorer SUV was essentially a stretched version of the Bronco2- being slightly bigger than the S10 Blazer and smaller than the Suburban and about the same size as the Jeep Grand Cherokee was it's main selling point.
now it just looks like a bloated monstrosity, and it's not even based on a truck chassis any more?
novaderrik wrote:neon4891 wrote:the first Explorer SUV was essentially a stretched version of the Bronco2- being slightly bigger than the S10 Blazer and smaller than the Suburban and about the same size as the Jeep Grand Cherokee was it's main selling point. now it just looks like a bloated monstrosity, and it's not even based on a truck chassis any more?Remember the first Explorer? Based on the Ranger mini-truck the first version was small, cheap and utilitarianI would like to see this again.
I parked my 98 beside a brand new 2011 and they are within an inch or two of the same size. The new ones have a longer wheelbase, shorter overhangs and just look bigger.
My 98 is much larger than the 1st gen though.
they went from this:
to this:
novaderrik wrote: ...now it just looks like a bloated monstrosity, and it's not even based on a truck chassis any more?
The Grand Cherokee has been a unibody frame since it was introduced almost 20 years ago and I've never heard anybody complain about its capabilities, so why should the Explorer stick to a body on frame design when 99.999999% of users will never even notice the difference? It can still tow 5000lbs, which is only 375lb less than the last generation V6 Explorer, but 2000lb less than the old V8 Explorer. An F150 with the non-turbo V6 can only tow 5500-6100lb depending on the final drive ratio, so the BOF design didn't help much there. Should Ford go with a BOF simply to improve towing 10-20%? Should they have developed a whole new platform, or heavily revised the Ranger platform just for this vehicle? That would have dramatically raised the price, and cut the profitability of the Explorer, not to mention that the maximum a Ranger can only tow is 6000lbs. Sure, you could argue that they could go with a BOF design and put a 5L V8 in it and suddenly the Explorer could tow 9000lb, but then you've just got a slightly smaller Expedition.
The new Explorer was the #6 best selling SUV in the US in September, so Ford must have done something right. The only vehicle in the top 10 that had a BOF was the Wrangler, and it only beat the Explorer by 50 sales. The number 1 selling was the Escape, the CRV was #2, Equinox #3, the Edge was #4. People don't want SUVs that are based on a truck frame. Source
Bob
In reply to novaderrik:
And?
It's a requirement for Ford to make you happy? Or should they focus on customers who do want to buy the car? Considering that sales are quite a bit higher with the new vs. the old car (203% higher for September, 126% YTD), it seems as if they move was more than just correct.
Better yet, it's using parts that don't have to be imported from Europe (the 4.0l V6), which saves a lot of money.
How many times to people here rail on SUV drivers who don't take their vehicles off road? And now, manufacturers have figured that out (far from just Ford, IMHO), to the betterment of people who actually pay the wages.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to novaderrik: And? It's a requirement for Ford to make you happy?
They should put a little more time into it. I buy a new car every ten or so years. That gives you guys about a year to put one of those v-6s into the back of a Focus, and maybe put one of those cute cloth sliding tops like the new Fiat. The clock is ticking.
alfadriver wrote: I wish I knew why it's not planned. IMHO, it would be a better "sport" kind of package in an Edge. Which would be an even better drop in, since it's lighter than a Taurus/MKS. OTOH, the 2.0l I4 EcoBoost IS planned for the Explorer.
That blows my mind that the Edge weighs less than the Taurus.
93
Wheelbase - 111.9 in.
Length - 184.3 in.
Width - 70.2 in.
Seating - 5
98
Wheelbase - 111.6 in.
Length - 189.5 in.
Width - 70.2 in.
Seating - 5
2011
Wheelbase -112.6 in.
Length - 197.1 in.
Width - 78.9 in.
Seating - 7
All widths were quoted without mirrors. Most of the length seems to have been gained on the front end. This leaves mostly just the width gain. Considering they have added two seats, I don't see the big downside.
novaderrik wrote: they went from this:
Schmidlap wrote:novaderrik wrote: ...now it just looks like a bloated monstrosity, and it's not even based on a truck chassis any more?The Grand Cherokee has been a unibody frame since it was introduced almost 20 years ago and I've never heard anybody complain about its capabilities, so why should the Explorer stick to a body on frame design when 99.999999% of users will never even notice the difference? It can still tow 5000lbs, which is only 375lb less than the last generation V6 Explorer, but 2000lb less than the old V8 Explorer. An F150 with the non-turbo V6 can only tow 5500-6100lb depending on the final drive ratio, so the BOF design didn't help much there. Should Ford go with a BOF simply to improve towing 10-20%? Should they have developed a whole new platform, or heavily revised the Ranger platform just for this vehicle? That would have dramatically raised the price, and cut the profitability of the Explorer, not to mention that the maximum a Ranger can only tow is 6000lbs. Sure, you could argue that they could go with a BOF design and put a 5L V8 in it and suddenly the Explorer could tow 9000lb, but then you've just got a slightly smaller Expedition. The new Explorer was the #6 best selling SUV in the US in September, so Ford must have done something right. The only vehicle in the top 10 that had a BOF was the Wrangler, and it only beat the Explorer by 50 sales. The number 1 selling was the Escape, the CRV was #2, Equinox #3, the Edge was #4. People don't want SUVs that are based on a truck frame. Source Bob
actually, Jeeps have been unibodies for closer to 30 years than 20 years.. but this isn't about having frames or not- it's about calling something a truck that isn't a truck any more.. it's a tall station wagon that they hit really, really hard with the fugly stick. the car makers love these kinds of vehicles because they can sell them at an insane profit margin and they don't take a CAFE hit on their car lines because they are somehow considered to be "trucks" instead of the full size station wagons that they really are. this is also why they've pushed things like the HHR and PT Cruiser- which are just small station wagons built on passenger car chassis that are somehow classified as light trucks for emissions, crash worthiness, and fuel economy rating reasons.
hey, people can buy what they want and the makers can make what they think the people will buy.. my opinion doesn't really matter much- i wouldn't buy anything new even if i could actually afford it. everything- yes, everything- except for the new Corvette and the base V6 Camaro is just flat out fugly and has too many nanny state gizmos on them.. even my relatively simple '04 Cavalier is right on the borderline of being too complicated for my tastes.
You'll need to log in to post.
