2020 Explorer

[blwnsmoke]

I’m seeing so many different numbers. I don’t know what to believe. On the actual Ford site under the specs of the 2020 explorer, it shows capacity 17.9 us gallons/ 20.2 us gallons. Maybe that’s actual plus reserve? I don’t know. The fuel tank, and subsequent range because of it, is pathetic on these cars. Ugggghh.

So just checked what you were talking about.

It says XLT and Limited are 17.9 gallons and the ST and Platinum are 20.2 gallons.

 

[NPNelson]

So just checked what you were talking about.

It says XLT and Limited are 17.9 gallons and the ST and Platinum are 20.2 gallons.

Correct! I just reread the owners manual and page 386 calls out the 17.9 gallons for the 2.3L engine. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[John Bosky]

I posted this on another thread, but page 20 of the owners manual lists quite a bit of specific info on the st suspension, and street vs track/performance options

 

[Sgt1411]

"Dr. Derriere" Helped Design 2020 Ford Explorer Seats

 

[blwnsmoke]

I'm really looking forward to seeing the difference in comfort during long drives, especially with the 5 levels of massaging seats. That is a big complaint I have now is losing circulation and getting antsy constantly having to shift positions

 

[kam327]

So just checked what you were talking about.

It says XLT and Limited are 17.9 gallons and the ST and Platinum are 20.2 gallons.

Didn't they make a big deal last year about reducing the variations on the side mirror from hundreds down to a few or even 1 to save costs but now they've introduced two versions of a fuel tank? Seems counterproductive. Just make 'em all 20.2 gallons. I miss my Durango's 24 gallon tank (with the base engine).

 

[blwnsmoke]

Didn't they make a big deal last year about reducing the variations on the side mirror from hundreds down to a few or even 1 to save costs but now they've introduced two versions of a fuel tank? Seems counterproductive. Just make 'em all 20.2 gallons. I miss my Durango's 24 gallon tank (with the base engine).

I think it has to do more with weight/mpg efficiency.

3.0 = 24mpg x 20.2 = 484 miles per tank

2.3 = 27mpg x 17.9 = 483 miles per tank

It's possible the reason it is 17.9 in the Limited is because the hybrid limited could only allow that size with the battery storage space and they decided to keep both engines the same distance. 2.3 has less weight now for the tank, less weight for the fuel and still maintains same distance as the 3.0.

 

[mkenny28]

Well unfortunately the lack of a 2nd row bench option on the ST caused us (my wife) to change course. We took delivery of a Grand Cherokee High Altitude yesterday. It's all about the dog of course! This is our 4th Jeep GC - pretty nice and the 3.6 liter surprised me. Last one was a Hemi.

Dealer said he'll just put the Red ST on the lot to sell - supposed to come in the 3rd week in June. A little part of me wants to trade my Raptor for the ST......

This is exactly what my wife's issue is, no 2nd row bench for the pooch. We currently have a 2017 Explorer Platinum with 2nd row cabin's chairs and we both hate them. My lease on that one is about up so I am moving up to a lincoln Aviator for work but we wanted to get a 2020 Limited for her with bench seating. I can't justify buying the Platinum just for bench seating but I also want her to have some nice features. She is eyeing the High Altitude as well. Very puzzling that they removed the choice for the bench seating.

 

[mkenny28]

Yep, same with us. I would buy an ST if it had the second row bench. And with even the Limited not having the second row, looks like I will be looking at something else...since I am not going to pay for the Platinum and the lower trim is missing some key features. Not having second row bench on the ST is really a miss, not having it on the Limited is a really strange decision by Ford.

My thoughts exactly. I could just pick up a 2019 Limited but it would always bug me that I didn't get the 2020. No bench seating on the Limited kills that option for my wife

 

[kam327]

I think it has to do more with weight/mpg efficiency.

3.0 = 24mpg x 20.2 = 484 miles per tank

2.3 = 27mpg x 17.9 = 483 miles per tank

It's possible the reason it is 17.9 in the Limited is because the hybrid limited could only allow that size with the battery storage space and they decided to keep both engines the same distance. 2.3 has less weight now for the tank, less weight for the fuel and still maintains same distance as the 3.0.

They didn't provide different size tanks for the 5th gen. They made a big deal about "fitness redesign" for the 6th gen. Reducing complexity to provide "faster times from customer order to delivery; so-called “batch building,” which reduces labor costs per unit and the complexity of parts sequencing on the assembly line; and reduced investments in engineering and prototypes."

But then they go and add complexity compared to the 5th gen by having two different fuel tanks. Stupid.

Ford Will Keep It Simple; Like, 25 Instead Of 139 Mirrors, For Just One Model

 

[blwnsmoke]

They didn't provide different size tanks for the 5th gen. They made a big deal about "fitness redesign" for the 6th gen. Reducing complexity to provide "faster times from customer order to delivery; so-called “batch building,” which reduces labor costs per unit and the complexity of parts sequencing on the assembly line; and reduced investments in engineering and prototypes."

But then they go and add complexity compared to the 5th gen by having two different fuel tanks. Stupid.

Ford Will Keep It Simple; Like, 25 Instead Of 139 Mirrors, For Just One Model

I can only try to come up with answers that make sense to me.

The 2.3 has more power in the 2020 than in 2019. The 2.3 also gained 3mpg compared to the 2019. Now, maybe only the 17.9 would fit in the Limited Hybrid because of all the extra "stuff" needed to pack into the floor (batteries, electric motor, trans, driveshaft etc). and they decided to keep the 17.9 across the whole limited trim. But going with that theory, that doesn't explain the XLT.

I guess I'm not sure what you are so upset about. The fact that the 2.3 can go the same exact distance as the 3.0, one is not benefiting or losing with either engine choice. The Explorer (excluding the hybrid) across the board will travel the same distance.

There was no other engine option in the Explorer when it was designed for 2011 but the 3.5NA so why would they have different tanks designed for it?

And there is huge difference between having 139 mirrors vs 25 over 2 fuel tanks instead of 1. If that's the case, why not offer the same rims, the same paint, the same seats etc.

 

[kam327]

I guess 2 steps forward 1 step back is my point.

 

[peterk9]

A somewhat unique display feature.

2020 Ford Explorer Has Easter Eggs In Drive Mode Interface

I noticed that in the last paragraph they refer to the Explorer Titanium instead of Platinum.

Peter

 

[Forddealz]

It's very interesting to read that the ST model will beat
Range Rover Sport HST P400.

 

[peterk9]

Build & Price is finally available on the Ford.ca website. FYI, the Platinum is $64,599 before A/C tax and destination charges which bring it to $66,549. The only thing I'm disappointed with is that the Premuim Technology Package is standard. Would have preferred the 8" screen. The lease rate has not been released yet.

Peter

 

[peterk9]

The Canadian ST only has the Street Package as an option. No Track Package. Also, the 2nd row 35/30/35 bench is a $500 option.

Peter

 

[peterk9]

Engineers Considered All-Aluminum For The 2020 Explorer

Peter

 

[Teledatageek]

This is exactly what my wife's issue is, no 2nd row bench for the pooch. We currently have a 2017 Explorer Platinum with 2nd row cabin's chairs and we both hate them. My lease on that one is about up so I am moving up to a lincoln Aviator for work but we wanted to get a 2020 Limited for her with bench seating. I can't justify buying the Platinum just for bench seating but I also want her to have some nice features. She is eyeing the High Altitude as well. Very puzzling that they removed the choice for the bench seating.

We're about 6 weeks into our Jeep. Reality hits about not having a 3rd row - summer vacations, etc. I see reports now that the bench is likely an option in a few months on the ST. Definitely should have waited.... Drove the ST yesterday - wow! Really nice and to us a nice upgrade over our '17 Explorer. I guess we'll see how it shakes out but I feel like we will take a giant hit on the Jeep if we do something in the next several months.

 

[Michael Lopour]

We're about 6 weeks into our Jeep. Reality hits about not having a 3rd row - summer vacations, etc. I see reports now that the bench is likely an option in a few months on the ST. Definitely should have waited.... Drove the ST yesterday - wow! Really nice and to us a nice upgrade over our '17 Explorer. I guess we'll see how it shakes out but I feel like we will take a giant hit on the Jeep if we do something in the next several months.

If third row was important what was the reason you didn't consider a Durango?

 

[Teledatageek]

If third row was important what was the reason you didn't consider a Durango?

Great question. Answer is that my wife (who is the primary driver) absolutely hates the Durango. We took one overnight for a test about a year ago.