@Forddealz,
OK - before I get into the meat & bones, I have to say that most every day I visit the 2020 forum, I'm left shaking my head in amazement with the roll out of the 6th generation Explorer.
As marketed, the 6th gen Explorer was supposed to be a grand-slam home run for the company that basically invented the mass-market SUV.
The past few years, Mrs FD has dropped the hint that maybe it was time to sell our 2nd Gen and get a 5th Gen. I've politely informed the Mrs. that the 5th Gen has a major engineering flaw in the Cyclone Series V-6 engines, specifically the internal water pump which in turn has generated a class action lawsuit against Ford. Therefore, the 5th Gen is a no-go, and I've been waiting patiently while saving $$$, witing for the roll out of the new Explorer, Bronco and Mini Bronco.
I really want FORD to make this one work, as well as the much anticipated Bronco and Mini-Bronco. BUT, so far, I don't feel it...
I'd like a 6 Cylinder AWD, but given all the problems I've read about, I've gone so far as to ask (to no avail) on this forum if anybody knows if the 4 Cylinder Eco Boost version utilizes the same AWD arrangement as the 6 Cylinder - specifically the routing of the AWD through the oil pan. I've even found myself thinking a compromise
"maybe a RWD version of this Generation is the safest bet (mechanically)."
I agree with the mechanical and engineering points that
@Axles of Evil has speculated and written about.
Axles of Evil has noted the Gen 6 front end AWD arrangement is subject to major rotational and axial forces, and it's packaged in a very confined space, subject to high radiant heat.
In addition to Axles of Evil mechanical evaluation, I feel that many problems experienced on this forum are somehow directly tied to a more-than-likely cut-throat business procurement case, rearing it's ugly head as the vehicle is now in mass production.
OK, so when the Explorer/Aviator test mules were driving all over the US, they were running on custom produced test-parts that were held to a very tight/close engineering spec. No doubt engineers were hand inspecting each part before signing off on it to be installed into a test mule.
My speculation is that due to Ford's constantly evolving cost cutting procurement methods, that in their actual Request For Proposal (RFP) for
PRODUCTION parts, there was very little meat left on the bone to sub-suppliers.
Sub Supplier sales staff signed the contracts, BUT on their manufacturing floor, the tight specs of the parts that test mules tested on couldn't be replicated 100% of the time in the PRODUCTION parts without a sub-contractor going into the red (not making a profit).
Recently I had a 9 months stint at a local small size CNC manufacturing company. Their niche market is making small runs of custom parts from high dollar materials, utilizing expensive CNC tooling/cutting equipment that wears out a little bit each time a part was manufactured. Long story short, I witnessed, on quite a few occasions, the head machinist approve for shipment batches of finished parts that were just outside of the spec of what the customer specified.
The cash-flow situation at the company was such that the CNC tooling had to be used in excess of it's service life until the capital became available to replace it. So, the head machinists "fix" was that the slightly out of spec batches were set aside and gradually mixed in with batches of parts that met the specs... I imagine that something similar is occurring with Sub-Suppliers currently supplying parts for the Explorer...
I think that one of the lesson's that Ford is going to learn from the 2020 Explorer/Aviator is that when you build vehicles that are very complex, and have very tight engineering specs., you can't build them with parts negotiated like you're supplying a Wal-Mart with bicycles, jeans, fishing equipment, BBQ grills, etc...[/QUOT