New Ford Explorer Sport: Fuel-Efficient, High-Performance SUV

[VinceL]

Originally Posted by Limited02

What options would you have given up besides Sterling Silver? I was thinking since the Sport is the "top level" that it would come with features standard that are available as options for the other trim levels?

Unfortunately, that is not the case. The feature set is a mixed bag compared to the other trims, especially the Limited (as it is what most people compare the Sport to because of price). You can look at the Edge Limited and Edge Sport for a similar comparison. A number of features that would seemingly be available on the Sport are not. The reason for this, I believe, is to keep the Sport from competing directly with the Lincoln MKX, its shared platform buddy. The MKX has the Limited features with the Sport engine, so they wouldn't give the Sport the Limited features also to keep the two vehicles from vying for the same market share.

This all leads me to the conclusion that an Explorer based Lincoln Aviator is on its way. When? I have no clue, but the feature deletion from the Explorer Sport is suspiciously similar to that of the Edge Sport, so I think the Aviator is in the pipeline.

[kc2dc]

The sport seems like it's more of an alternative to the limited than a higher tier. Much like how they break down the maxima my primary car (sport vs premium).

The sport and limited are nearly identical in price when optioned out. I wish you could combine them.

[VinceL]

Originally Posted by kc2dc

The sport seems like it's more of an alternative to the limited than a higher tier. Much like how they break down the maxima my primary car (sport vs premium).

The sport and limited are nearly identical in price when optioned out. I wish you could combine them.

You'll be able to with the not-yet-announced Lincoln Aviator, or MK(whatever)...lol

P.S.- I have no inside info, I'm just blowing smoke out of my arse, lol.

[corona]

Really curious to see how the new Sport performs with acceleration and braking.

2013 Ford Explorer Sport is 4,859 lbs with 350 HP/350 TQ.

Jeep GC 5.7 is 5,210 lbs with 360 HP/390 TQ and does 0-60 in 7.3 sec.

BMW X5 3.5 is 4,960 lbs with 300 HP/300 TQ and does 0-60 in 6.4 sec.

BMW X5 5.0 is 5,379 lbs with 400 HP/450 TQ and does 0-60 in 5.3 sec.

Jeep GC SRT8 is 5,150 lbs with 470 HP/465 TQ and does 0-60 in 4.8 sec.

So maybe Explorer Sport does 0-60 in low 6’s if geared right? Jeep GC 5.7 seems like it should accelerate faster but I’ve heard the gearing doesn’t help acceleration.

Explorer Sport should be able to add HP/TQ (and reduce 0-60) with Livernois and other ECU tunes, maybe getting to mid 5’s?

It would be nice if this could perform between BMW X5 3.5 and 5.0 at a lower price point and without the luxury brand. I hope it is close on braking and cornering.

Looking forward to seeing some tests.

[Limited02]

The best comparison for the Explorer IMO would be an Ecoboosted Flex. I've been following a guy that has a full weight Flex with an axle back exhaust, Liveronis tune, meth injection and run's 12.9's a full weight. In stock form, EB Flex's seem to run in the bottom 14's

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums...ro-v6-lol.html

[ford99_1979]

Originally Posted by Limited02

The best comparison for the Explorer IMO would be an Ecoboosted Flex. I've been following a guy that has a full weight Flex with an axle back exhaust, Liveronis tune, meth injection and run's 12.9's a full weight. In stock form, EB Flex's seem to run in the bottom 14's

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums...ro-v6-lol.html

I've seen this guy over on Flex Forum as I lurk there because my wife drives an ecoboost FLEX. I'm not alowed to modify it...... Plus I have prepaid maintenance and extended warranty for 5 years.

Family hauler, sleeper and this weekend will be going camping with a tent trailer behind the Flex.

Back to the topic, 3.5 ecoboost is fast and can go faster relatively simply.

[Bwana Bob]

Originally Posted by GJarrett

As Rick has tried to explain, it has no transfer case. Any stock/non-modified first or second gen Explorer will absolutely and completely outperform it offroad.

I've got an idea to make everyone happy. Does anyone want to try an Ecoboost swap into an earlier gen 4x4 Explorer? I'll provide mine as a donor vehicle.

I agree. To me, though the 3.7L ecoboost engine will make it go fast, "sport" is not leather interior "inspired by the fashion houses of Europe" or raised lettering on the hood. Sport is a transfer case, all-terrain tires and an available manual transmission.

I don't rock crawl or mud bog, but I have had to take my 1st gen through snow, ice and flooded streets. I use the transfer case in winter. Just last winter I was on an urgent mission (to get a bag of prescription diet cat food). I was going up an icy hill in 4WD when the wheels started to spin and the truck bogged down, even in first gear. I switched to low range and from a dead stop, she powered right up the hill. Likewise, I don't have that low-hanging air dam to get destroyed on those chucks of ice and hard-packed snow that the plows leave at the intersections and foot of the driveway.

Frankly, I think that the replacement for the original Explorer Sport is the new Escape with the 2.0L ecoboost. It's smaller and more agile, roughly the same size as the original 2 door Explorer, and no low air dam. Only disadvantage is it looks like a Honda CRV.

The only enthusiast's 4X4 that Ford is offering seems to be the F-150 Raptor, but for me the F-150 is 'way too big. I just hope that when my '92 Ex gives up, that Ford will be offering the new Ranger or a new Bronco.

Admittedly, I'm being a die hard, though I could be convinced otherwise as new facts come to light.

Bob

[LeFurg]

Originally Posted by corona

Really curious to see how the new Sport performs with acceleration and braking.

2013 Ford Explorer Sport is 4,859 lbs with 350 HP/350 TQ.

Jeep GC 5.7 is 5,210 lbs with 360 HP/390 TQ and does 0-60 in 7.3 sec.

BMW X5 3.5 is 4,960 lbs with 300 HP/300 TQ and does 0-60 in 6.4 sec.

BMW X5 5.0 is 5,379 lbs with 400 HP/450 TQ and does 0-60 in 5.3 sec.

Jeep GC SRT8 is 5,150 lbs with 470 HP/465 TQ and does 0-60 in 4.8 sec.

So maybe Explorer Sport does 0-60 in low 6’s if geared right? Jeep GC 5.7 seems like it should accelerate faster but I’ve heard the gearing doesn’t help acceleration.

Explorer Sport should be able to add HP/TQ (and reduce 0-60) with Livernois and other ECU tunes, maybe getting to mid 5’s?

It would be nice if this could perform between BMW X5 3.5 and 5.0 at a lower price point and without the luxury brand. I hope it is close on braking and cornering.

Looking forward to seeing some tests.

BMW X5 3.5 is 4,960 lbs with 300 HP/300 TQ ------ 0-60 in 6.4 sec.

BMW X5 5.0 is 5,379 lbs with 400 HP/450 TQ ------ 0-60 in 5.3 sec.

2013 Ford Explorer Sport is 4,859 lbs with 350 HP/350 TQ ------ ?

2013 Ford Explorer Sport is 101 bs. lighter with 50 lbs more hp and tq than X5 3.0 & 520 lbs. lighter with 50 hp and 100lbs tq less than X5 5.0. I would say 0-60 on the Ex will be around 6.0 seconds (5.5-6.6). Even with the gearing, the Explorer with the "naturally aspired" 3.5 V6 achieved 0-60 of about 7.5 seconds. Youtube video shows someone's 060 at about 7.4 seconds on their 2011/2012 Ex 4wd - pretty close to the 5.7 V8 Jeep GC. however, the Jeep is also heavier.

IMO the only thing holding the explorer back would be the touring tires on it as oem.

[Limited02]

Two co-workers are out testing several 2013 Fords and one of them is the Explorer Sport. Hoping to get a speedo shot and if so, I will post it up.

[Bwana Bob]

Originally Posted by Varsity

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

[GRNMACHINE]

And I'm in agreement in with Bwana Bob.

Everytime I see a new Explorer I see nothing but a look alike FWD Chevy Equi-knocks... Nothing special, nothing that says I would be willing to shell out upwards of $40k on it. Not knocking it for what it is, but not an Explorer to me.

[Bwana Bob]

Agreed. They don't even look like trucks anymore, just wagons, minivans, or oversized hatchback cars.

Its design heritage is the Freestyle/Taurus-X. Does anyone know what drivetrain components were used? The Haldex system from the Freestyle, Dana? Spicer, or a new Ford design?

There doesn't seem to be a lot of aftermarket parts, either, but it may be too soon.

Now in fairness, they did take it to Dubai to run it in the sand:

http://www.off-road.com/blog/2010/09...-desert-video/

In the video, the Ford engineer says that they beefed up the subframe and drive train, and he does talk about the Explorer heritage and off-road capability. It also looks like the terrain management system takes the guesswork (for some drivers) or skill (for us) out of managing the 4WD system. Just turn the knob and the vehicle figures it out for you. ("But mother, I'd rather do it myself.")

I'm still skeptical, mostly because of that low air dam in the front. I'd like to see some video taken in snow, or heavily rutted dirt roads.

I'm starting to think that the new 2013 Escape has more fun potential. It doesn't have the low air dam and the lower front slopes sort of like a fake skid plate. Despite it's Honda CRV clone appearance, aren't the Escape's dimensions similar to the old Explorer Sport or the Bronco II?

Guess I'm old fashioned but I still love the early Explorers. Time will tell...

Bob

[Keeper0311]

That's an interesting video sir. I wonder if they'll drag one out to Truckhaven?

[NEWPORTNJ]

Grnmachine, what are you doing on this site if you are not an explorer owner, but rather a hater ! The explorer is a great looking vehicle great ride, yes it might have some issues but so those all other vehicle out the including gm so get off this site you might be a gmc rep !!!

[CajunFordEx]

Originally Posted by NEWPORTNJ

Grnmachine, what are you doing on this site if you are not an explorer owner.........

Hey folks.No need to flame anyone here. If you would read you would see that he IS an explorer owner year 1995. This "site" is also for other vehicles besides the Explorer.
Everyone has their own opinions of different vehicles and can state them as they see fit as long as they abide by the owners rules.

We can surely all get along and be civilized without flaming each other?

Thanks

[MrQ]

I have never been a big fan of CUV's. It's a jack of all trades and a master of none. This makes it at best a mediocre performer in most categories. Nevertheless, I still hope to see these vehicles progress onward with a more rugged outlook. I do like the Sport, but it is hideously overpriced and lacks some of the features of the limited. You are basically shelling out for the 3.5 Ecoboost and Ford is banking on that being the selling point. As for its off road capability, I cannot judge as I have never seen one in action, but the merits of a decent off-road capable vehicle is ground clearance, a low range transfer case, and decent suspension. Unfortunately Ford made a glorified AWD system in the new Explorer which sets it apart for most off-road applications.

It is good to note though, that it is a good on-road vehicle. We cannot judge a vehicle mainly on its off-road performance, whatever we have come to expect from the Explorer name. For what it is, Ford did a good job and as long as our expectations don't exceed the vehicles abilities, most people will be perfectly happy with what it is.

[Rick]

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.

Sure there is, just a trip to Arizona away. We have loads of old low mileage Explorers with perfect bodies just waiting to become someone's next project

[dcplorer]

The 2013 Explorer is a great ride. If it wasn't for the black-listing by U-haul it would be perfect.

[delexploder]

I'll keep my full framed truck based Gen 2s im not ready to go mini van yet!

[13Sport]

Originally Posted by delexploder

I'll keep my full framed truck based Gen 2s im not ready to go mini van yet!

To make that comparison you obviously haven't driven one yet. It's more like driving a luxury sedan. There's almost 0 body roll, and the comfort is ridiculous. It also looks great.

It's not an off roader, and I understand the disappointment with muddying the "Explorer" moniker (I felt that way when Dodge destroyed the "Charger"), but it is a great vehicle for the market it is directed toward. When all of you die hards can realize that the Explorer is dead, you'll be able to join us in being excited about the Explorer. Even if the new Explorer didn't exist, the old Explorer would still have died, there wasn't enough market to keep producing it.