'11 Explorer Revealed!!

[thaywood]

I'm sorry. But I HATE the new Flexplorer. I don't know what the folks at Ford have been smoking lately, but they need to stop. It's giving them the stupid real bad. Why didn't they just let the Explorer die with dignity as the world's first and best all-around SUV instead of slapping the great Explorer nameplate on this glorified Taurus wagon? The thing is basically a Taurus-X/Freestyle/Flex mashup. It's wrong-wheel-drive with a sideways engine and no V-8. No true SUV should EVER have a sideways engine. It just goes against all that good in the world. It also has a cheesy FWD/AWD system that is primarily wrong-wheel-drive in all but the most severe conditions. And it has no low-range. It's also got a crappy-a$$ econobox-style strut suspension that has no place on a real SUV. If Ford had any sense, they would have imported the RWD/AWD Falcon-based Territory from Australia. It's technically a car-based crossover, but it's based on a REAR-WHEEL-DRIVE car! At least it would have been competetive against the new Grand Cherokee. Now I'd take out a second mortgage to buy one of those if Ford would make it available in the USA. As far as the Flexplorer, I can't afford one, but even if I could, I wouldn't touch that wrong-wheel-drive pathetic excuse for an imitation SUV with a 10 meter cattle prod.

 

[tmike]

I'm sorry. But I HATE the new Flexplorer. I don't know what the folks at Ford have been smoking lately, but they need to stop. It's giving them the stupid real bad. Why didn't they just let the Explorer die with dignity as the world's first and best all-around SUV instead of slapping the great Explorer nameplate on this glorified Taurus wagon? The thing is basically a Taurus-X/Freestyle/Flex mashup. It's wrong-wheel-drive with a sideways engine and no V-8. No true SUV should EVER have a sideways engine. It just goes against all that good in the world. It also has a cheesy FWD/AWD system that is primarily wrong-wheel-drive in all but the most severe conditions. And it has no low-range. It's also got a crappy-a$$ econobox-style strut suspension that has no place on a real SUV. If Ford had any sense, they would have imported the RWD/AWD Falcon-based Territory from Australia. It's technically a car-based crossover, but it's based on a REAR-WHEEL-DRIVE car! At least it would have been competetive against the new Grand Cherokee. Now I'd take out a second mortgage to buy one of those if Ford would make it available in the USA. As far as the Flexplorer, I can't afford one, but even if I could, I wouldn't touch that wrong-wheel-drive pathetic excuse for an imitation SUV with a 10 meter cattle prod.

When was the last time YOU purchased a NEW vehicle? I'm just curious.

 

[thaywood]

When was the last time YOU purchased a NEW vehicle? I'm just curious.

Never. In my 20+ years of driving, I have never been able to afford a "new" vehicle. I actually may be able to next year, though. And if I do, it sure as hell won't be a Flexplorer. We're thinking more along the lines of Expedition. At least it's still RWD with a frame and a V-8 engine. And with the 3rd row, we can haul both kids and a couple of their friends.

 

[2TimingTom]

Why didn't they just let the Explorer die with dignity as the world's first and best all-around SUV instead of slapping the great Explorer nameplate on this glorified Taurus wagon?

Really? The world's FIRST and BEST all around SUV? What about the Suburban, Jeep Grandwagoneer or Jeep Cherokees before the Explorer?

 

[Joe Dirt]

"Jason Mase, Ford's manager of utility vehicles, told The Detroit News that about 55 percent of buyers are opting for the trailer tow package, and 64 percent want all-wheel drive. Mase says that consumers don't really care if the vehicle is a crossover or an SUV, the major concern is that the vehicle fits their specific needs."

That's why Ford built this vehicle, and they're spot on. Sorry to the body-on-frame-or-I'll-walk fans, but you have to build a vehicle that the masses want, not a minority, if you want to be viable. You can't ignore the numbers so far.

Some will love, some will hate, it's a subjective argument, and it's like beating your head against the wall trying to change someone's mind, as you're probably not going to do it anyway.

What you could do though, is stigmatize people's perceptions of you by calling their choice of a vehicle that meets every need they have as a stupid, asinine purchase that will immediately shrink the size of their crank as soon as they sit inside of it. It's kind of ridiculous. Especially since the JGC keeps getting trumpeted as some sort of BOF savior when it's always been a unibody vehicle in the first place.

Jeep blew their whole wad on this one. They have nowhere to go, what features will they add? Ford can now sell these, then in a year or two, add air leveling, maybe a V6 EcoBoost. You know- create demand? Otherwise, you sel some like Jeep is, then nobody has a reason to upgrade.

Think about it- would you have bought a new 1991 with a measly 155HP V6? Probably not- if you simply must have the V8. Did Ford give you one? Yes. Give them time, and they could surprise you if sales take off. Will the EcoBoost be in it? If it sells well and the marketing data says they're missing a large pie slice by not having one, yes. Putting millions into development of all the things they could add for the first model year would be an idiotic process. As things move along, things will get added, but this most certainly isn't a raging piece of s**t vehicle.

 

[LincolnAviFan]

Joe, I totally agree and think Ford did a great job on this vehicle.

 

[thaywood]

Really? The world's FIRST and BEST all around SUV? What about the Suburban, Jeep Grandwagoneer or Jeep Cherokees before the Explorer?

Yep. FIRST and BEST "ALL AROUND" SUV. The Explorer was the first SUV to be more than just a 4-door truck with an integrated camper shell. It started the SUV craze in 1991 and was the benchmark by which all others were judged for many years. So I stand by my statement.

 

[tmike]

Yep. FIRST and BEST "ALL AROUND" SUV. The Explorer was the first SUV to be more than just a 4-door truck with an integrated camper shell. It started the SUV craze in 1991 and was the benchmark by which all others were judged for many years. So I stand by my statement.

So then explain the Travelall, the original suburban with three doors, the first Jeep Wagoneer. Wasn't the first Explorer nothing more than an extended Bronco II?

 

[NHarris]

So then explain the Travelall, the original suburban with three doors, the first Jeep Wagoneer. Wasn't the first Explorer nothing more than an extended Bronco II?

I am going to go a little deep on this topic: Hope you all don't mind

They weren't classified as an SUV. The original bronco was classified as an ORV at that moment in time. Now we classify all the broncos as an SUV. The Explorer DEFINED the SUV (more or less). Isn't the SUV a 4-door station wagon on a truck frame?
The Cherokee is a Unibody, but we will get back to the cherokee in a moment. The explorer's partial claim to fame was a truck frame on the midsize SUV. The wagoneer was techinacally a station wagon at the time. We classify it as an SUV now. It created a class of SUV, but nothing like what the explorer created.

The Jeep Wagoneer "created a whole new category of so-called sports-utility vehicles" and its "massive estate car design was the most car-like 4x4" that "defined the boxy, macho shape" copied by others

-Citation- Lewin, Tony; Borroff, Ryan (2003). How to Design Cars Like a Pro: A Comprehensive Guide to Car Design from the Top Professionals. MotorBooks/MBI Publishing Company. p. 191. ISBN 9780760316412. http://books.google.com/books?id=GT...fSVDA&client=safari&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false. Retrieved 2010-01-13.
The wagoneer replaced the originial jeep station wagon, which at its time was the SUV.
The suburban is an SUV for sure. It can't be classified in the same as the explorer.
The explorer was the first midsize SUV that came along at the right time. Thus creating its popularity. I'm going to quote something from wikipedia here:

According to the transportation curator at the Henry Ford Museum, Robert Casey, the Jeep Cherokee (XJ) was the first true sport utility vehicle in the modern understanding of the term.[5] Marketed to urban families as a substitute for a traditional car, the Chrerokee had four-wheel drive in a more manageable size (compared to the full-size Wagoneer), as well as a plush interior resembling a station wagon.[5] With the introduction of more luxurious models and a much more powerful 4-liter engine, sales of the Cherokee increased even higher as the price of gasoline fell, and the term "sport utility vehicle" began to be used in the national press for the first time.[5]

So the cherokee was the first true SUV, but it didn't show up during the SUV boom of the 90's. So it never really got the fame that the Ex did

 

[tmike]

here is some more on the HISTORY of the SUV. It's a pretty decent article.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGdVVtY....about.com/cs/historysuvs4wds/a/aa012601a.htm

There's also this-- The First SUV!

http://englishrussia.com/?p=1511

 

[Jager]

pathetic design. idc if its the best selling crossover, that thing is ugly as hell. Enough with round corners. the only benifit to that is if it rolls over....LOL

Ok, i hope there is a major 2012 revision (if the world isnt over), cause that **** is ugly.

stickin with my 3rd gen for a while now...

 

[NHarris]

Reading the article the MAJORITY of pre-orders are AWD. And with towing packages... ford needs to understand no one to a few want that explorer in FWD, so they can redeem themselves and do a RWD X?... eh...makes it a little better than before. Wonder what the 2015-2016 redesign will bring?

The new explorer can be a tug boat in its spare time its so rounded.

 

[Joe Dirt]

Ford understands very well what they're doing- look at their maret share lately. Honestly- if Ford had market data that said that nobody would buy a FWD Explorer, they wouldn't build one. Market data didn't say that, so as of the pre orders, 36% of the people buying them are buying FWD Explorers. That's before any of the public that haven't ordered yet have even driven them to find out that for what they do, day in and day out- driving to work, driving to kids events, driving to the store- that FWD Ex will do everything they need it to do.

For trailer towing, pre-orders are nice, but even there barely half of them are being ordered with towing packages. 45% of the Ex's ordered don't have towing packages, becasue they'll never tow anything anyway. So, the "nobody wants them" argument really doesn't hold water there either.

Ford is playing the numbers- as big as our community is, it's a small blip in the market that Ford is trying to sell to. If Ford's market data showed that nobody wanted anything but a body on frame, V8 powered 17mpg SUV that could be modded to go rock crawling or hard-core trail jumping- they would build one. Unfortunately, the real market that supports that desire (not even need, just desire) is so small, you can't base a vehicle on it. If Ford built that vehicle, basically rebuilt the old Explorer with a new body and the same gut offerings with everything that's changing in the market including fuel prices and the re-evaluation of what people honestly need vehicles to do, I'd think Ford was absolutely crazy. If that vehicle was going to sell, it would have. It was already out:

Instead, the Gen IV Explorer sales numbers were dropping off a cliff as people flocked to crossovers as they more accurately filled the needs they actually had. You can see the popularity of the Edge as evidence.

Instead, Ford didn't rebuild the old aging Ex- so I don't think they're crazy, and as a shareholder, I'm incredibly pleased with what they're doing. I'm glad I bought when it was at $2.15/share, I can tell you that much...

 

[thaywood]

There'll be a sales boom at first as sissyboys and soccer moms flock to this imitation SUV in droves. Then it'll end up just like the Flex when the initial "newness" wares off. A flop. Then folks will realize what they've got. A tall Taurus wagon, not a real Explorer. I don't care what anyone says, FWD is not a requirement in the market. The Ford Territory from Australia is a perfect example. It isn't FWD. It's a unibody SUV based upon the REAR-WHEEL-DRIVE FG Falcon platform. It also has a 300+/-hp DOHC 4.0L inline-6 standard and a 400+hp turbocharged 4.0L I-6 in the FPV and F-6 versions. And it sells quite well. Ford should bring it over here and euthanize the Flexplorer before it dies a slow, agonizing sales death. The unibody aspect doesn't bother me so much as the switch to wrong-wheel-drive. Personally, there aren't many things in this world that I hate more than wrong-wheel-drive. And please don't try to say the AWD system is 4WD. It's not. It's FWD with rear wheels that work once in a blue moon. I wish I could find the moron who invented FWD and hang him by his toe hairs and beat him to death with a timing belt (the second stupidest invention in the history of humanity next to FWD). If the Flexplorer were REAR-WHEEL-DRIVE with a real 4x4 system with low range, I'd like it a whole lot more. As for the styling, it's not bad. But the FWD proportions kill it for me. Too much front and rear overhang, odd dash-to-axle ratio, and front wheel arches too close to the leading edge of the front door. This gives the appearance that the wheels are too close to the center of the vehicle. And it just looks wierd. Anyhoo, that's the way I feel about it. I'll keep my good ol' '94 4x4 GEN1 thanks.

Just for the heck of it, here's an example of what the Flexplorer might look like if the proportions were re-worked to make it look more RWD:

Okay, that didn't work. So here's a link to my modified Flexplorer pics on Flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43317521@N05/5074714961/in/photostream/

 

[2TimingTom]

The Explorer has slowly been pussified ever since the first redesign- it just hasn't been this drastic. IFS in the 2nd Gen. IFS and IRS in the 3rd Gen. Neither of those are considered desirable "off-road characteristics".

Call them "soccer moms" call them "sissyboys" call them what you want. Ford calls them consumers. Consumers keep the lights on. 99% of of Explorers on the roads today are used as people movers. People can be moved from point A to point B with any combination of 1wd, 2wd, 4wd, rwd, fwd, awd. I'd be surprised if most people even knew which end of their car was being driven (While waiting to get my Explorer smogged, I couldn't believe how many people in AWD cars pulled up to the 2wd lanes only to get turned away and set over to the AWD lane).

There's no future for mid-sized SUVs that get 18 mpgs on a good day.

Anyone know the numbers on the new F-150? How many are NOT being ordered with the V8?

 

[thaywood]

The Explorer has slowly been pussified ever since the first redesign- it just hasn't been this drastic. IFS in the 2nd Gen. IFS and IRS in the 3rd Gen. Neither of those are considered desirable "off-road characteristics".

I agree and disagree to a certain point. You're right in that the Explorer has been "softened" over the years. However, during it's 19-year run, it retained REAR-WHEEL-DRIVE, an inovative full ladder frame, a true 4x4 system and impressive towing and off-road capabilities. My sister has an '05 Explorer 4x4 and it's quite impressive. And personally, I have no problem with 4-wheel independent suspension. Especially in a 21st century vehicle. In fact, IFS/IRS is actually a good thing when it comes to ride comfort, handling, and obstacle avoidance. Now, I realize that hardcore off-roaders would rather have log axles at both ends, and that's cool. It's much more rugged and tough. But IFS/IRS is more modern and, arguably, better for all but the most demanding rock crawler.

Call them "soccer moms" call them "sissyboys" call them what you want. Ford calls them consumers. Consumers keep the lights on. 99% of of Explorers on the roads today are used as people movers. People can be moved from point A to point B with any combination of 1wd, 2wd, 4wd, rwd, fwd, awd. I'd be surprised if most people even knew which end of their car was being driven (While waiting to get my Explorer smogged, I couldn't believe how many people in AWD cars pulled up to the 2wd lanes only to get turned away and set over to the AWD lane).

True. And what have "consumers" done for the Freestyle, Taurus-X, and Flex? Run away from them by the boatload. And what is this new Flexplorer? It's a rebodied Flex. Ford is losing money on the Flex because they can't move them. So they put the new Explorer on the Flex platform in the hopes that consumers will buy it based on the name alone. That way, when they discontinue the Flex, they can recoup some of their losses in Flexplorer sales. And it may work. At least for a while. And unfortunately, I have to agree that most consumers don't have a clue what's under their vehicle's hood or which end is doing the driving. And that's sad.

There's no future for mid-sized SUVs that get 18 mpgs on a good day.

True. That's why they need to make them get better gas mileage. I know it's possible. We have the technology. My '94 4x4 with 135K miles on it gets 19.5 all the time. Of course, I keep it tuned up and keep the fluids and filters changed regularly and use premium or misgrade gas (I NEVER use 87 octane) with numerous treatments and cleaners. There's no reason Ford could not have gone the same route as Jeep with a mid-size unibody SUV with a V-8 engine and real 4x4 system. Jeep is apparently knows what real SUV buyers want. And Ford didn't need another crossover. They already have the Edge, Escape, and Flex. That's plenty. They're saturating their own marked and it's going to bite them in the butt.

Anyone know the numbers on the new F-150? How many are NOT being ordered with the V8?

That's a good question. I dare say quite a few. I never understood why Ford stopped putting 6 cylinders in the F-Series. And an even bigger concern of mine is why the hell they stopped letting buyers get a manual transmission. Personally, I like to shift my own gears. And it's a well known fact that straight drives get better gas mileage.

 

[willied]

There'll be a sales boom at first as sissyboys and soccer moms flock to this imitation SUV in droves. Then it'll end up just like the Flex when the initial "newness" wares off. A flop. Then folks will realize what they've got. A tall Taurus wagon, not a real Explorer. I don't care what anyone says, FWD is not a requirement in the market.

I guarantee you it will sell well and it will sell even better in the coming years, whether you like it or not. I'm sure all of us here prefer RWD, but it certainly seems that most of the general public don't even know whether their car is FWD, RWD, or AWD, etc. It's pathetic, but it's just the way that it is.

The Explorer has slowly been pussified ever since the first redesign- it just hasn't been this drastic. IFS in the 2nd Gen. IFS and IRS in the 3rd Gen. Neither of those are considered desirable "off-road characteristics".

Call them "soccer moms" call them "sissyboys" call them what you want. Ford calls them consumers. Consumers keep the lights on. 99% of of Explorers on the roads today are used as people movers. People can be moved from point A to point B with any combination of 1wd, 2wd, 4wd, rwd, fwd, awd. I'd be surprised if most people even knew which end of their car was being driven (While waiting to get my Explorer smogged, I couldn't believe how many people in AWD cars pulled up to the 2wd lanes only to get turned away and set over to the AWD lane).

I agree.

 

[Joe Dirt]

The Territory is a great example- It is offered in RWD and AWD. The majority of people buying them are not opting for AWD. If mileage ratings could be equal to 30+ in a RWD Ex with an inline 6, and they can get let's go for it, but I'd actually prefer the TDV6 here. Would be nice to have a diesel. I just don't think a mid size RWD SUV is going to sell here anymore, not like it did, and not like Ford needs it to.

I love that the Territory includes a "handbag holder to the side of the seat for female drivers, recognizing that many SUV buyers are women..." Nice and manly...

I especially like this line: "Appearance-wise, the Territory resembles the Ford Taurus X sold in North America. Both cars have similar styling cues—it was this that sold the Territory to Ford executives at the head office in Dearborn, Michigan."

Interesting, so that's what Ford should have built here- a Taurus X-esque unibody SUV? No, wait... :shifty_ey

No vehicle is going to be all things to all people. Just because it isn't everything to any particular random person doesn't mean that Ford is completely incompetent and everyone buying one is a limp-wristed Nancy.



In other news...

Here is some good info on the new F150 engines...

CLICK ME

I'll take the EcoBoost V6:

"As-is, the F-150’s EcoBoost V6 will produce a Taurus SHO-matching 365 horsepower at 5,000 RPMs (500 RPMs lower than the SHO’s horsepower peak) and an SHO-topping 420 lb-ft of torque at just 2,500 RPMs. The SHO produces 350 lb-ft at 3,500 RPMs, so there is a definite torque upgrade here – chalk that up to the beauty of forced induction. The EcoBoost-equipped F-150 is rated to tow up to 11,300 lbs., which matches the capabilities of Ford’s 6.2 liter SOHC V8 available only in the Harley-Davidson F-150 and SVT Raptor specialty premium trucks. More impressively, the SHO needs premium fuel to achieve its numbers, while the F-150 EcoBoost will run on regular fuel all day and still hit its numbers. Too, this engine’s 420 lb-ft of torque tops competitors’ premium V8s torque outputs. For instance, GM’s 6.2 liter V8 produces 403 horsepower and 417 lb-ft in pickup applications, and reaches its torque peak at 4,300 RPMs versus the EcoBoost V6’s 2,500 RPMs."

The 5.0L will be ok, but I'll take the V6 Eco. I pull a 14' aluminum fishing boat and a brush trailer, or drag deer out of the woods. I'll keep the extra fuel money and buy more beer- I don't really need the compensation.

 

[thaywood]

I guarantee you it will sell well and it will sell even better in the coming years, whether you like it or not. I'm sure all of us here prefer RWD, but it certainly seems that most of the general public don't even know whether their car is FWD, RWD, or AWD, etc. It's pathetic, but it's just the way that it is.

How can you guarantee that? Ford already has at least 3 CUV's (Crappy Useless Vehicles) right now. One of which is not selling very well. Why would the Flexplorer (which is built on the same platform as the one that's not selling) sell any better than the rest of them? Because it's an "Explorer" in name only? I doubt it. The Edge is really the only CUV Ford has that is selling. The Escape may be on its way out, and the Flex will probably be discontinued to make way for the Flexplorer in a year or two. And the Freestyle and Taurus-X have already proven to be dismal failures. So basically, the Escape and Edge are the only two CUV's Ford has had any real sales luck with. they don't need anymore. They will end up saturating their own market with crappy little imitation SUV's and end up discontinuing most of them due to poor sales because they're all competing with each other under the same nameplate. However, I do have to agree that it is pretty pathetic that most of the general car-buying public has no clue what kind of car they have. It's really sad.

 

[willied]

How can you guarantee that? Ford already has at least 3 CUV's (Crappy Useless Vehicles) right now. One of which is not selling very well. Why would the Flexplorer (which is built on the same platform as the one that's not selling) sell any better than the rest of them? Because it's an "Explorer" in name only? I doubt it. The Edge is really the only CUV Ford has that is selling. The Escape may be on its way out, and the Flex will probably be discontinued to make way for the Flexplorer in a year or two. And the Freestyle and Taurus-X have already proven to be dismal failures. So basically, the Escape and Edge are the only two CUV's Ford has had any real sales luck with. they don't need anymore. They will end up saturating their own market with crappy little imitation SUV's and end up discontinuing most of them due to poor sales because they're all competing with each other under the same nameplate. However, I do have to agree that it is pretty pathetic that most of the general car-buying public has no clue what kind of car they have. It's really sad.

Let's just say I'm not going to be surprised when they sell more Explorer's than they are selling now.

The reason people don't buy the Flex is because of how it looks. Everyone that I've heard of that's been in one of them thinks it's a great vehicle. I've been in one myself (didn't drive it), and it is a very nice vehicle to be inside of. Most people just don't like the exterior looks of it. I'd rather have it than a van, though.

And the Freestyle/Taurus X wasn't really well executed. The name change was stupid, they had a CVT in it originally, etc. I think the Explorer will prove to be a much better vehicle.