What is your favorite RWD Explorer replacement?

[FStephenMasek]

What is your favorite Explorer replacement, limited to rear wheel drive, or rear drive based all wheel drive vehicles? Why? Here are the ones I can think of:

Audi Q7 / Porsche Cayenne / Volkswagen Touareg
BMW X1
BMW X3
BMW X5
BMW X6
Cadillac / GMC / Chevrolet Suburban / Tahoe / Escalade / Yukon
Dodge Durango / Jeep Grand Cherokee / Mercedes-Benz M
Ford Expedition / Lincoln Navigator
Infiniti FX
Land Rover LR2
Lexus LX
Mercedes-Benz E wagon
Mercedes-Benz GL
Mercedes-Benz GLK
Mercedes-Benz R
Toyota 4Runner / Lexus GX

 

[aelli614]

Grand Cherokee. why because its a jeep.

 

[aelli614]

although Id add wrangler unlimted to your list.

 

[colintrax]

^Jeeps suck.
Don't forget the Excursion, and of course the Ranger.

 

[aelli614]

^Jeeps suck.
Don't forget the Excursion, and of course the Ranger.

I forgot all about the Excursion.

 

[4df150]

What about another Explorer.....

 

[FStephenMasek]

New. The Excursion has not been made for several years.

 

[2000StreetRod]

mid size RWD SUV?

In a few years I'll need to replace our 2006 Toyota V6 Highlander. It's been a reliable and economical vehicle for us so far but I've decided I want a RWD with a six cylinder engine. I hate the requirement to remove the entire induction system to replace the rear three spark plugs on a transverse V6. The Toyota 4 Runner is a consideration but I don't like wide separation panel between the rear side windows. The panel reduces visibility. The 2013 Durango is another consideration but it weighs almost 4800 lbs and gets worse gas mileage than my Highlander. Weight wise the Grand Cherokee weighs more than the 4 Runner and less than the Durango. But I'm not a fan of high waistline vehicles that remind me of the old Volvo P1800 and my wife doesn't like the "muscular" look. I'm not enthusiastic about anything currently available.

 

[rickybobby]

Isnt the Flex a RWD platform

 

[2000StreetRod]

typical crossover

Isnt the Flex a RWD platform

The Flex is either front wheel drive (standard) or all wheel drive (optional) which is typical for crossover vehicles.

 

[01STrunner]

I'd have to say GMC Yukon XL. We had an 02 3/4 ton with the 8.1 Vortec. That thing pulled 9K lbs trailers like a dream. Plus it had Autoride which made it really smooth when unhitched.

New, I like either the Q7 or the GL with a diesel engine for the fuel economy.

 

[FStephenMasek]

Front drivers, or front-based AWD just are not competitive with RWD vehicles, as they do not handle and stop as well due because too much of the weight is on the front wheels, and they are made to both turn and handle the drive function, and they have too-wide turning circles. All to save much less than $500 (just add a drive shaft, differential housing, and support for the differential assembly, as the differential itself and the half-shafts are present in both FWD and RWD designs, as are driven and undriven hubs).

We liked the new BMW X1 at the Orange County Auto Show, and liked it even more after seeing it again at the San Diego Auto Show today. It it clearly far better than the competing Audi, and $6,000 less than the Mercedes-Benz GLK. Important for me, it has a 40-20-40 rear seat with the center 20% section folding flat and level with the rear cargo compartment. The Mercedes-Benz GLK and most SUVs do not even offer a 40-20-40 2nd row seat as an option.

 

[colintrax]

New. The Excursion has not been made for several years.

Whats wrong with old vehicles? And the excursion came with a diesel....
Also, FWD is more efficient. IE better fuel economy
FWD isn't fun to drive, and I'd never want one. But for MPG they make sense

 

[rickybobby]

Hmm, based on the options available these days it would be a 4door f-150 ecoboost or a toyota FJ landcruiser

 

[2000StreetRod]

turbo 4 vs V6

. . . We liked the new BMW X1 at the Orange County Auto Show, and liked it even more after seeing it again at the San Diego Auto Show today. It it clearly far better than the competing Audi, and $6,000 less than the Mercedes-Benz GLK. Important for me, it has a 40-20-40 rear seat with the center 20% section folding flat and level with the rear cargo compartment. . .

It's available with the sDrive (rear wheel drive only) but comes with a turbo 2.0L 4 cylinder. I prefer a non-turbo V6 for reliability and lower octane requirements. It also seems a little small although I haven't compared the physical dimensions to my Highlander.

 

[FStephenMasek]

It's available with the sDrive (rear wheel drive only) but comes with a turbo 2.0L 4 cylinder. I prefer a non-turbo V6 for reliability and lower octane requirements. It also seems a little small although I haven't compared the physical dimensions to my Highlander.

My 1984 Pontia Sunbird turbo was still running strong, with no internal engine work, when I sold it at 160,000 miles. I did not hesitate to shift it at the red line. We've got over 61,000 miles on our Mercedes-Benz with a supercharged four, and it runs like new. Therefore, I have no basis to be concerned about the reliability of boosted fours.

As for octane, the better mileage, which partly comes from lower weight, of a boosted four generally negates the 20cents per gallon savings of regular vs premium.

There is no reason to think front wheel drive will give significantly better fuel mileage, as rear wheel drive would add very little weight, just a drive shaft and part of a differential housing (as the front drive transmission housing is larger to hold the differential).

 

[wood1]

Ford Expedition. I have one as a work vehicle, works great except for the traction control which is just annoying.

 

[colintrax]

My 1984 Pontia Sunbird turbo was still running strong, with no internal engine work, when I sold it at 160,000 miles. I did not hesitate to shift it at the red line. We've got over 61,000 miles on our Mercedes-Benz with a supercharged four, and it runs like new. Therefore, I have no basis to be concerned about the reliability of boosted fours.

As for octane, the better mileage, which partly comes from lower weight, of a boosted four generally negates the 20cents per gallon savings of regular vs premium.

There is no reason to think front wheel drive will give significantly better fuel mileage, as rear wheel drive would add very little weight, just a drive shaft and part of a differential housing (as the front drive transmission housing is larger to hold the differential).

FWD is proven to be more efficient. Less drivetrain lose means more power being made at the crank is making it to the wheels.
Also, vehicles that require higher octane will get better mileage. Higher compression, aggressive timing, and to a degree boost = a more efficient engine which means better gas mileage (when driven appropriately...)