Ex Vs..all other competitors

[Forder]

Has anyone noticed (or are bothered) that the Ex is one of the weakest SUV in its class? If you look at all other SUVs in its class:
Trailblazer- V6 270 HP, 275 lbs/ft torque;
Durango- V8 255 HP, 295 lbs/ft torque;
Pathfinder- V6 240 HP, 265 lbs/ft torque;
Cherokee- I-6 195 HP, 230 lbs/ft torque;
4Runner- V6 183 HP, 217 lbs/ft torque;

Explorer- V6 210 HP, 254 lbs/ft torque

(All of these are standard in their 2002 models)

I was just lookin around in that CarsDirect link that I found in one of the posts in here, and was looking at all the other SUVs that they compare to the Ex. It seems that Ford needs to do a overhaul on their engines or build a newly designed one if they wanna keep up with todays standards for SUVs. I hope they realize this soon or their #1 selling SUV will begin to fall to the knees of their competitors. Does anyone else feel this is a problem, or is it okay to trade power in for luxury (which is basicly what their doing)? Does anyone think that the Ex is becoming inferior to their major competitors (Chevy, Dodge, Nissan)? Please express your opinions about this. I have been wondering about this for a while now.

 

[TwoToneX]

I agree, the Explorer engine is in a decline. But there's definately a more important thing to look at, and that's complete indenpendant suspension. They are designing an SUV for people that don't know horsepower and torque from ketchup and mustard.

The Explorer as we know it is gone. In my humble opinion, they should just retire it before they go any worse. But as long as their making sales, they don't care.

However, in my opinion, the ratings for the V6 OHV in my '91 were a little low, but it gets me around.

 

[theoutlawtorn14]

I wish my X got 210 hp... imagine having the '97 4.0 OHV... 160hp, 220ft/lbs...

 

[TarHeel085]

well look at the 4runner and the cherokee they are below 200 hp. but the durango is a LOT bigger than the X, and the trailblazer is a straight six, so thats it right there, i dunno bout the pathfinder. but i bet i could beat em all (CEPT THE TRAILBLAZER) in a race!

 

[Forder]

Acutally, the Ex and Durango are about exactly the same size:

Ex: Length- 189.5", Width- 72.1", Height- 71.4"

Durango: Length- 193.5", Width- 71.6, Height- 72"

Their maximum internal cargo area is also exactly the same at 88 cubic feet.

 

[Alec]

With rearend and tranny gearing, the X is actually not slow compared to those other SUVs. It's actually fairly light too. It's also supposed to get better mileage. I agree the X has always been a bit underpowered, but peak power numbers aren't everything, it's the overall power curves, weight, and gearing that really matter.

 

[Jason_25]

We can't forget the V8 though!

I agree about the 4.0's. I have driven both 4.0's and they are both quite undperpowered for today's standards (although IMO I think they're wonderful).

But honestly, I think most SUV buyers in the market today could care less about HP. As long as it's enough to haul those groceries it's all that matters.

 

[Forder]

That's true, Alec, but most ordinary consumers most likely aren't going to see that. Kinda like what Twotone said; "They are designing an SUV for people that don't know horsepower and torque from ketchup and mustard." When they see that Trailblazer commersial come on and here about its 270 horses, if they're seriously considering buying an SUV at the time, they'll probably go for the Trailblazer. Especially after they learn that the Ex has 60 less horses than it. But that's just my logic and opinion, I could be completely off. But style also plays a factor in it too. We've learned that from the Mustang Vs Camaro scenario. The Camaro has almost always had more power under the hood then the Mustangs had (stock anyway). But the Mustang has always outsold it. That's probably played a major factor in the Ex's success too. It still wouldn't hurt though to keep at least a small margin in between the Ex's numbers and it's competitors. Just for those people that do only look at the numbers and not the more logical (or complicated) aspects of the vehicals.

PS: The Trailblazer only weighs 350 lbs more than the Ex and is actually rated to get a lil better gas mileage (Ex: 16/21, Trailblazer: 16/22)

 

[Flounder]

Isn't the Pathfinder supercharged anymore?

 

[Stephen]

I've actually driven all of those vehicles including the 2002 Explorer and here is my opinion:

Powerwise, the Explorer feels a little more sluggish than the Durango, the V8 GrandCherokee and the TrailBlazer, but not the Pathfinder. Historically Nissan either bloats their HP ratings or they have serious problems getting engine power to the ground. In my opinion the fully loaded V6 Limited that I drove felt stronger than the Pathfinder, and the V8 definately did for a similar cost. As far as the Explorer's size goes, in my experience it has as much space, if not more than the Durango, and much more than any of the rest of them. My 97 Explorer has more room than the TrailBlazer, the Pathfinder, the GrandCherokee and the 4Runner. These all seem very cramped when compared to my Explorer, let alone a 2002. You have to weigh the pros and cons, if I were the median buyer of these vehicles, someone with 2 kids, a dog that takes a lot of trips, even though I like the Pathfinder/Grand Cherokee/ 4Runner truckishness more, and I like the overall look of the Grand Cherokee and the Pathfinder more, I would almost have to go with the 2002 Explorer because of the space and convenience. It is MUCH more versitile than any of those vehicles. I wouldnt even consider the Durango because its so outdated and behind the times.

Even though it may not be for the offroader anymore, the Explorer is still the undisputed king of the midsized SUVs if you ask me.

 

[Forder]

Yeah, the Pathfinder is still supercharged..

 

[Flounder]

Well, pop the blower from a Cobra on the 4.6L in the Explorer and have a little fun... or see how well the DOHC from the Lincoln Aviator fits in the Explorer

I'm not a fan of the new Explorers at all... all I can say is Screw (SuperCrew) me...

 

[jimbo74]

out of all those listed before, i tihink i would take a mopar.... they seem to be the toguhest... but i also think anythin other than explorers [1990-2001] built in the past 20 years isnt really a truck..... all others are i am cool..i dirve a truck.... how many of those "trucks" will ever be used what it means to be a "truck"?

 

[unabonked]

if you look at power, the x will lag. But how many lifted durangos do you see offroading? I was reading about the previous engines available in the Ranger a few days ago. Most didn't reach much above 100 hp. So in a sence these engines are a big improvement.

Besides those who tow 30' boats, who needs 350 HP? Just street racers. And anyone who street races an SUV is a danger to himself and others.

The Aviator is coming with a new engine. Murcury has the new street marques called the maurauder. A new stang is suposed to be coming out soon right? I have a feeling that Ford is going to be upgrading their engines industry wide.

Lets not forget that ford seems to also be keeping true with their attempt to add 25% fuel savings over the next few years. 300+ hp on a truck that gets 25-30 MPG is VERY hard to do.

 

[Alec]

As for mileage, a supercharged version of the 4.0 SOHC wouldn't be that hard to get into the high 20's in terms of mpg. Before I tuned my supercharger setup for more power, I was getting 30 mpg on the highway right after I installed it. I think with the right tuning, an s/c sohc could make very decent power and get great (for a truck) mileage.

 

[Jason_25]

Originally posted by unabonked

Besides those who tow 30' boats, who needs 350 HP? Just street racers. And anyone who street races an SUV is a danger to himself and others.

I think you hit the nail on the head right there.

 

[Robb]

Acutally, the Ex and Durango are about exactly the same size:

Not in cargo length. For my work trucks, I have to be able to carry 6' ladders in the back. The X (4door) is the only on the list that will do this.


I would take my X over my wife's Laredo anyday of the week.

 

[zensius]

You're also forgetting what I think is one of the biggest selling points, the third row of seats.

 

[FORDisKING]

You guys are forgetting one other thing: While the Durango and the Explorer are about the same size, the DCX group couldn't build a dependable tranny if their own job's depended on it. I love my 210hp, because the tranny works.

Ford till the end!

Jason

 

[CoryL]

Originally posted by jimabena74
out of all those listed before, i tihink i would take a mopar.... they seem to be the toguhest... but i also think anythin other than explorers [1990-2001] built in the past 20 years isnt really a truck..... all others are i am cool..i dirve a truck.... how many of those "trucks" will ever be used what it means to be a "truck"?

Are you serious? If you are, I want to LAUGH straight up in your face because that is one of the most asinine things I have heard in a long time.

Past 20 years....huh? Let's go back 20 years from 1990. That puts you in 1970. The Ford Bronco had seven years of production left. Are you telling everyone that the 66-77 Ford Bronco isn't really a truck and than an Explorer is superior? Maybe in terms of ability to get groceries more comfortably, but thats about it. 302/C4/D20/D44 and 9" STOCK.

Don't forget about the Toyota Land Cruisers of the late seventies and early eighties. International had the Scout and Scout IIs. Those things were REAL trucks through and through.

What about all the Jeeps (CJ, YJ, TJ) from the 70's and still to the present? Solid axles, V8s, light, etc.

Not to burst your bubble here, but the purpose of the Explorer isn't like that of a truck. It may have been based on one, but I would never call it a truck. It's purpose is to sell to families with children so that you can take them all to soccer practice at the same time.

While a few people actually wheel them (most of them here and RRORC) on the whole 95% of the Explorer owners won't ever push that 4wd button. They certainly don't know what Low Range is for.

Hell, push button 4wd? Real trucks have a lever you pull.