I believe that how the vehicle is driven and maintained from day one will decide the longevity of the drivetrain. I'll say this- I've had 3 Gen II Explorers so far.
My first:
...'95 ControlTrac. That one I sold with 230k+ on it, with the original trans, transfer case, CV's, U Joints, and Driveshafts. Only thing done in the 2 years I owned it from 170k to 230k+ was that I changed the rear end fluid when I was fixing a leak, put on a set of tires, shocks, a radiator, sway bar body bushings to tighten things up, and some various sensors/nitpick stuff. It was bulletproof, it just drove and never left me stranded. I miss Snowball.
I sold that one, and bought a '97 V8 AWD:
...due to being worried about having something happen to the trans in my '95, and wanting to sell it before it did since the '95 was a weak year for the trans even though it had no issues when I sold it, and because the V8 AWD drivetrain was pretty much as good as it gets.
I started working on that one the first week. New CV axles, new wheel bearings, new u-joints, new transfercase, new front driveshaft, and when I sold it the front axle was going out. Not bulletproof.
Sold that one and got my current Ex, 2000 V8 AWD.
...It's got a strong shifting trans, but trying to diagnose issues as well with this, haven't owned 'er long enough to know everything yet as I just now started driving it daily.
So my story is, the fragile-as-glass '95 trans never gave me trouble. Ever. The bulletproof V8 AWD I 'needed to have' gave me nothing but trouble, and I hope this one will be different.
I know my '95 was maintained, and the '97 was beat on and probably not as well maintained. Given a choice, I'd rather have a maintained FWD than a beat on and non-maintained RWD/AWD as there are many more parts to maintain for trouble-free driving involved in a 4WD/AWD, I know I'd spend too much bringing a non-maintained AWD back to life to my standards, which is why I sold the '97. I don't think many cars anymore are built "inherently weak", I think many have questionable owners that don't keep the vehicle serviced, expecting them to need nothing but gas for the life of the vehicle, or beat the hell out of them and don't maintain them accordingly...
Are FWD vehicles harder to maintain? They're tighter up there, that's for sure. I don't know, I've replaced enough parts on my AWD Ex's that would be similar parts that I would replace on a FWD car. They're all expensive to maintain as they near the end of their life cycle, IMHO.
Ok, I'm bored at work... So I'll toss a bunch out and exit the 2011 discussion for a while, erin. I'd prefer to give it a chance to BE good or bad before deciding it is an abject failure.
Will it meet expectations? Don't know. They're not out yet, so
nobody but the long range test engineers can even realistically say, and everyone's expectations are different. Some have very specific expectations that the new Ex will never meet, because it doesn't meet a specific checklist of features. That is different as well- I doubt that even if a new Ex plopped in someone like thaywood's driveway, he would be happy with it if it ran 200k+ trouble free miles, simply because it isn't a RWD based vehicle. And that's fair- he has specific expectations, and completely entitled to them as a consumer, who can show displeasure by not buying one or even saying how much it sucks.
As the markets shift, some consumers' expectations may have to shift, or he like other buyers may need to look to other brands if deciding to buy new. No vehicle can meet
every expectation of
every consumer. Will they meet yours? That's up to you to experience and decide. I can only say that it is a very well engineered vehicle completely starting over, so it's a complete unknown, and it's up to trusting Ford engineers who have been building great vehicles for a few years now. It won't be a Gen I Explorer, but technology improves, and the new Ex should be able to do things that the old Ex couldn't, even though there are still things that the Gen I did that the new 2011 can't. It's a different vehicle with a somewhat different purpose- urban transportation. I think the issue is that it's viewed as 'backwards' by a lot of us, when the original one could be described as backwards by a lot of the buyers of the first gen Ex.
When the old Ex made it's debut, it was sold as a very capable off-road truck on a frame with bad gas mileage that most people put up with because gas was cheap and it had room to haul stuff and never left pavement or towed anything. Now, once people have gotten away from the Ex and sales dwindled due to the rise of gas prices and people honestly saying "hey, I can really use a CUV or car for what I used my Ex for..." Ford is responding by building an Ex that meets those requirements at the expense of the heavy off-road community since I'm sure it'll be minimally modifiable if there even is an aftermarket. It still has off-road capability, but it's not twin traction beam, or torsion bar. It's not on a frame, it's a unibody like the Grand Cherokee. It will get much better gas mileage after the full compliment of engines is fitted, and will be a great vehicle for 90% of the potential buyers and their needs. It won't climb rocks, and it won't roast the rear tires off. So, I think it's better positioned to attract the most potential buyers, and that's Ford's job. It's a bit of a leap of faith for consumers such as yourself...
)
