Totally agree with ya there, I'm kinda on the fence as well.
I think these new Ex's are a letdown coming from what used to be a very capable and awesome vehicle and it may not mean much coming from me, but I don't think I've seen too many vehicles that can do double duty as a soccer-mom mobile or a rock crawler as easily or awesome as Explorers. Explorers are incredible, but like someone said before, this is how things are going unfortunately. Sad, but true and there's nothing we can do about it.
I am glad to see an ATTEMPT (I know I'll be flamed for this) at doing something with the Explorer. Not saying it's awesome or a killer or everything's alright, but its something, as sad as it may be. And I'm starting to sort've like these 5th gens, maybe not as Explorers, but as vehicles they are pretty sweet and this Sport model is kinda cool to me. I'd definitely drive it. Maybe this sporty (and I use that term loosely) version means something that Ford might be trying to go towards enthusiasts or die-hard fans of stuff. They still may have miles and miles to go before getting to them, but in a world of oversized bloated disgusting SUV/CUVs nowadays this is alright to me. Maybe they will start targeting other groups now and make something like the Bronco all over again.
Just my opinion though...
I'm in agreement with Varsity and Rick.
The 5th generation is a fine machine, as a replacement for the Taurus-X wagon, but not as an Explorer. I don't mean to insult anyone and I realize that Ford had to keep the Explorer name, but rebadging a Taurus X does not make it an Explorer. I would have been happier if Ford had kept some of the unique Explorer DNA instead of trying to copy the styling of the Chevy Equinox or that awful Dodge journey, and then adding a Range Rover grille.
As for the mechanical design, even with terrain management, I don't see how a Taurus drivetrain could be as capable and rugged as the old Dana 35 and Borg Warner transfer case. I don't do mud bogging or rock crawling, so I don't mind if the later generations can't be lifted, but my stock '92 has gotten me home through some pretty scary conditions: slippery hills, deep snow, flooded streets. In 4WD Low, I can power through snowbanks and climb icy hills with ease. I just don't think that the new generation can do that, especially with that low air dam in the front. (I can hear the sound of tires spinning and CV joints popping) I would be happy if someone would prove me wrong.
It's been 20 years since I bought my 92 XLT and SUV design has changed radically since then, driven by advances in computer and sensor technology, the consumer's desire for car-like ride and handling, EPA standards, and political correctness, but Jeep, Nissan, and Toyota are still making 4X4s, so why has Ford dropped out of this market? Can't they compete, or did Ford see the writing on the wall for 4X4s from ever-tighter CAFE standards?
I'm getting worried, because at 20 years of age, 241,000 miles, and more rust to patch every year, my '92 "may" be nearing end of life and there is no replacement in sight. (Fortunately, I have a 2010 Focus as a daily driver, which prolongs the life of the Explorer). I had planned on the Ranger as a replacement, but that's gone, too. So, my only hope is if the economy and automotive market improve and Ford has some more cash and vision to produce a Bronco III or bring the new Ranger to the U.S. market. 'Til then, I'll just have to keep patching the rust.
Rick, maybe you can open up a counseling forum for us die hards who are not yet ready for the 21st century SUV/CUV world. Or maybe the Early Bronco/Bronco II Club will let us in.
Thanks for reading.
Bob
