meyeste

Good feedback thanks, the saddle brown is nice, it's been awhile since I have seen the older Traverse, other than to say I didn't notice the seats were small, I couldn't say. However as soon as I opened the door of the high country I noticed the seat width was narrow and the thickness of the cushion was slim. I always sit in every seat of any vehicle I am considering and decide whether I could handle sitting there; the answer has to be "yes" or I walk away. I didn't actually test drive the Traverse, unless they were willing to knock 7-8k I simply wouldn't consider one. Also I know better than to buy a first model year vehicle, especially from GM.

I have heard that, however it's gotta be frustrating to see a GT weighed down and otherwise limited to the point a Corvette is able to beat them. While I agree they ought to keep the cars competitive, completely eliminating a better car's superiority is going a bit too far. Perhaps a good rule ought to be normalize all pit crew times and adjust each car's time, so that races don't come down to pit crew performance. After all they are doing that with cars, why not do it with pit time?

focus here "If someone from Onstar contacts you after an accident the conversation is broadcast to local police". if that implies "automatic crash reporting" is being paid for well great it doesn't change that this does in fact happen.

I was excited to see the GT in the IMSA GTLM classes and the initial success looked promising, then I found out about the BoP and how it degrades the performance of a GT to the point a Corvette can beat it on a track. My question then is why develop the GT at all? Why not just put the Mustang in those races and then all the other manufacturers would have to weigh down their cars until the Mustang can beat them? I agree with BoP to a point, however what has happened is the team with the best pit crew is most likely to win are we actually watching racing or are we actually watching a pit crew competition? I'd be really, really tempted to enter the Mustang into this series and move the GT to some other series for a year, just to let them know BoP is overreaching... and of course then I'd be laughing my ass off watching Mustangs beat Corvettes that are carrying 500 lbs of BoP weight.

If the camera catches the door of the car that hit you and it sends your phone a message that'd be enough in most cases, if the car has blindspot sensor they could be used to detect the car pulling out. If there is a will there is a way, if just some Ford vehicles had this feature, once it became general knowledge all Ford cars would benefit.

Like I said, whenever a car equipped with onstar detects an impact and someone from Onstar comes on the line - the conversation is broadcast to local police.

I went and looked at one tonight, they had the $51k High Country version on display, I thought the seats looked small, and didn't feel like a seat I'd want to sit in for more than 30 minutes. I am 5'10" and weigh 170. I did like the saddle brown color of the seats in the high country model and would pay extra for them in a FORD. I think the traverse is priced high, though I am fairly certain everyone that buys a GM does it because they get a discount so MSRP's are probably rarely paid. One other thing they did get right is the third row could accommodate three teenagers and it would appear with the second row seats removed and the third row seats folded down you could get a 4x8 sheet of drywall in there. I realize I'd never do this however the 4x8 drywall sheet laying flat is a benchmark I won't compromise on. Which is why I have kept my Odyssey around long past necessity, quite honestly it can almost hold as much as the 6' bed of F150. I am looking to replace both the Truck and Van with one vehicle which will likely be the next generation Explorer or the Expedition depending on the capability if the next generation Explorer.

Interestingly enough Telsa does this now likely after reading my post... So I can expect this on the next Explorer? Thanks.

That isn't true, I have friend with an Onstar equipped Acura. He doesn't not pay extra for automatic crash response, he hit a puddle and hydroplaned into a guardrail. The car was actually still drivable, the air bag didn't even go off. The Onstar operator detected the accident and asked if he needed help - he said - no I'm good, the police tracked him down while he was on his way home. The cop that stopped him told him whenever Onstar detects a crash the conversation is automatically broadcast to police in the vicinity. I'm not sure where you get your information, this is what actually happens.

Well it looks good and given from what I hear the platform it's based on was actually meant for a larger SUV, vs. the current one that was intended to be shared with a car I suspect it'll be very good. I was concerned with the ground clearance, though after studying video believe they may have actually increased ground clearance, and if so that is awesome. I'd like to see a feature on the next Explorer that allows for higher ground clearance and then lowers the vehicle at speed. While I am not off-roading I do like to head out when the powder is coming down and the more ground clearance the better, though I think minimum is somewhere around 8". IMO Ford generally has been on a roll lately and so I am excited to see what they have done with the Explorer.

So you've lost the argument now you're getting off topic. An Edge and a X3 or Q3 are in the same vehicle class, a Mercedes C class and F150 clearly aren't. This is someone with issues' way of agreeing, I recognize and appreciate that.

I find making excuses never gets me anywhere, fact is a Ford Edge Sport starts at about the same price as an X3 or Q3. And I am one of those that love Ford, and am not a believer in the "two brands" concept, sure Lincoln can exist however Ford should not be intentionally reducing content in a Ford brand vehicle to "give space" to the Lincoln. If there is price overlap they are competitors, plain and simple.

I think you're heavily biased towards Ford, the MKX does not make an Audi look bland, artfully done perhaps, bland no. I disagree you have to look at Lincoln vs. a BMW, Audi. An X1 / X3 or Q3 / Q5 can be had priced in the same range as an Edge if paying MSRP.

I read somewhere all Mclaren engines use FPC, the engine in that car is a 3.8L V8, the production car is a twin-turbo, not sure if they run the turbo's the GT4 versions.

Thanks for the response, I had heard the low-end torque is better with the CPC though I wonder if there a trade off in lost high-rpm power? Do you know if the mclaren's use FPC engines? I seems they have an advantage in top-speed however just about all the cars (porsche, camaro, Mustang) are able to take them in the twisties. It does seem like while the CPC engine can get itself through traffic to get in front though it can't run away from the pack like the FPC engine could, it's too bad we can't see the GT350R-C cars on the track vs. the GT4 car. In my mind the FPC engine is one for top drivers than are able to keep the engine running at high rpm while the CPC may be a bit more forgiving.

I agree with you that there is a gap in the Ford line-up; while I see that a uni-body SUV was the way to go for a mass-seller for the Explorer, the Explorer just doesn't appeal to me. However neither does the Edge, I rented an edge and really liked how it drove, however in my opinion someone is actually trying to make that vehicle look as bland as possible. Sit it next to a Jeep GC and the Jeep looks much, much, much more upscale. There just nothing distinct about it at all, the Explorer marginally better. So with the new Bronco I hope that the engineering staff brings in an exterior designer that comes up with a front end design that moves the Bronco forward - perhaps the whole Ford line-up for that matter. I have posted before that can we get the effort that when into the exterior of the S550 or the Fusion on the SUV exterior. Why does a Ford have to look plebeian next to a BMW, Jeep, Audi etc?? I do like the idea of the Bronco and if it looks as good as it performs, I'd buy it, however at the Jeep GC is it's competition and it's not restricted to capability - a Jeep looks good, very good, let's not have a bland Bronco.

I love the IMSA GS series and while I get that the ever-changing "fair competition weighting" skews the actual performance of the cars on the track it still shows the Ford 5.2L is one heck of an engine as the Mustang entrants have dominate power despite the Mustang being the largest car in the GS series besides perhaps the aston - which is simply not competitive. In fact I found the Mustang carries the second most "equalization" weight - second only to the Mclaren. Last year the GT350R-C Mustang won the championship, however I believe it's confirmed that the GT4 Mustang uses a CPC version of the 5.2L, and hey i am not second guessing them just wondering, what drove that decision, has Ford given up on FPC engines? Will the CPC 5.2L find it's way to a production vehicle?

Question about the new Ford engines; it used to be Ford would do actual buyers a favor and conservatively rate the HP / torque for insurance purposes, are they still doing that?

I think so, though I have had people say "wow the new Ford bed gets holes in it, did you see that?" however every person that has said that too me were people that don't own trucks and aren't even around them. I grew up with trucks being from a rural area, we used them to haul livestock, wood, creek gravel, and whatever, I can't recall ever punching a hole in one, though I can recall scratching them up and dealing with subsequent rust and that is why I and everyone I know puts a bed liner in them. I have never, ever seen anyone put a tool box on a bed rail, and almost everyone that has a need to carry tools around with them has the toolbox mounted behind the cab. Putting a let's say 25 pound steel tool box on a bed rail would instantly draw the attention of just about everyone in the area and they'd say some form of "what are you thinking?", not because they are worried about punching a hole in your bed (which Chevy did do to their own truck at least once), because doing so is an obvious safety hazard. Think about what would happen if that tool box fell the other way - you'd likely lose a toe or break a foot or if there are kids around severely injure them yes even truck owners try to avoid situations that obviously would result in injury. As a truck owner I felt Chevy was talking down to me, as if I were dumb enough not to see the obvious flaws in the scenarios.

Fairly decent responses; Thanks for pointing out the SS was a Zeta platform car, the Alpha cars are the Camaro, ATS and CTS. I agree the issue is Marketing; in the sense GM's market research led them to produce cars that didn't sell why is that? Well price point; it seems GM can't learn this lesson after all a big reason the Generation 4 Camaro was axed for poor sales and I believe that was also because it's price point was too high. Now Ford has ramped up the 2018 Mustang's price point however, to build more or less the same car I have now the price point is nearly exactly the same (I don't have a PP car because I won't want the 19" wheels). To get to $50k there are options that simply weren't available before and I think this is a good strategy on Ford's part. It would seem GM (as usual) agrees or has simply decided it's probably best to do whatever Ford does as I hear they will do the same for 2019. At the same time the Camaro really is a practical two seater, the one owner of a 16 Camaro (V6) I know traded it in less than a year because of that reason they got a small SUV instead.

Strange you know a lot more about GM than I do, I was really looking for people to agree with me; GM seems to be ran by idiots and it's kinda fun to watch. I can't say I really care if they right the ship or not. More seriously IMO GM engages in the practice of telling people what they want to drive, and then they get upset when people don't agree with them and don't buy their cars. I wonder how that meeting goes; you have to believe someone is in there saying "look we let the Germans get out ahead of us in the ought's, all our cars were crap - possibly cite the Cadillac Cimarron to drive the point home, we need to start ground up provide value and earn back customers" That would be the individual that actually did research and knows that he/she is talking about. Next we have the Exec whose research consisted of reading of BMW's profit margins and spends his/her time watching Kevin Costner movies this person says "I don't believe it, if we build a great car people will recognize it and buy them!!" speaker #1 comes back with "we must provide value to customers to get them back", Exec responds with "but I want a yacht next year!!!, have you seen the margins BMW makes? They charge customers $6k to replace a shock! (thinks to herself ) "perhaps a helipad on that yacht" though kinda mouths it out loud, at which about speaker #1 realizes he'd best get on board or will be out of a job.

In my opinion Ford is now a value buy (if a bit speculative) and I am buying, one reason is the dividend is strong (getting dividends always puts a smile on my face); However i think this cnbc review is shortsighted (or quite timely for investors such as myself). Currently there is no question GM absolutely rules the large SUV market however the Expedition sales improved dramatically after Ford put the 3.5 EB for a while it was about matching Tahoe sales numbers, even though the interior was simply not up to par. On the other hand, the IRS in the Expedition is remarkably better than the live-axle in the GM utes. With the new redesign of the Expedition/Navigator Ford has corrected the interior issues. I personally think the current Expedition looks good and has aged well, however the appearance of the new model is far more upscale and I think that is going to get it noticed. Now I hope Ford was able to improve mpgs because I believe mpg's are a significant decision maker - especially when all else is close. Finally I hear Ford has been listening to those people that say "but I want a V8" and the OHC 7.0L will make it into upper-trim Expeditions & F150's, frankly I think this is a fantastic idea because luxury is about excess and 7.0L DOHC says "exxxccccesssss" like no puny 6.2L OHV engine ever could. What are the risks; poor execution of course though Ford generally executes very well. most significant are dealer-client relationships. In all honesty the Expedition and Tahoe are both good vehicles so the experience at POS is important. In that respect I give GM dealers credit, I donated my last GM car 4 years ago (what other option did I have), and while at one time I disliked going to the GM dealer, that changed. After their bankruptcy the people at the GM dealer finally seemed to at least act like they cared about me as an owner; they seemed to have gained humility from the embarrassment of bankruptcy. From that perspective at least compared to my Ford dealer GM had Ford beat when it comes to customer relationship, it seemed like taking my F150 in to Sheehy meant a minimum $600 charge, on the other hand the GM dealer consistently fixed the Oldsmobile for considerably less. I rebuilt a 68' stang and worked on many a car so I have an idea what appropriate work is, let's just say my Ford dealer always seemed to find more wrong with my truck than I estimated, in contrast the Chevy dealer's findings usually matched my own. I don't take my truck to that Ford dealer anymore, however if I had a GM I'd still take it back to the Chevy dealer. I wouldn't by a GM truck today because frankly I think they not on par with a Ford ( body won't ever rust means a lot to me, as does Ford's leadership in engine design), if they were the reason above might just get me to the Chevy dealer vs. the Ford dealer.

As we all recall the GM Alpha platform was highly awarded and was supposed to have given GM a leg up on Ford, BMW, the world in general; it was highly acclaimed, every single auto magazine raved about the alpha-based ATS, SS & Camaro. In reality, the alpha platform has fallen well short of expectations. You have to wonder will GM be able to figure out why the vaunted Alpha platform is being handily outsold by the far less acclaimed CD4 platform & S550? (I had to look up what the Fusion platform was called as I had no idea). For example Lincoln's, MKZ easily outsells the ATS and CTS combined (I looked it up), The S550 has easily outsold the 16 Camaro even though GM had a year to tweak the alpha based Camaro to make it better (which they clearly do). So what gives, why is the Alpha falling so short? I have my own opinion; in the luxury segment and being a midwest transplant living just outside DC I think I have a good perspective; people don't care that much about pinnacle performance they want to show all the other 1 mm deep people they have money and that's it. A BMW, Audi or Mercedes represents showing off success, a Cadillac or Lincoln for that matter will never do for those people. Also give BMW, Mercedes and Audi credit; though their reliability and longevity is terrible, their vehicles generally look very good. For the rest of luxury - practicality and value define success. the ATS was neither, rear seat and trunk are cramped and it wasn't an absolute ugly car, but wasn't much of a looker either. Pony cars - the '16 Camaro took a step back in style, compared to the Zeta it's bland in direct comparison though if viewed separately they do resemble one another - which has more impact on I am unsure, likely a little of both. Second I could not buy a 16 Camaro because it's simply too small, I am not a big guy - 5'11" and nail the bmi for my height, still the Camaro makes me feel cramped as soon as the door closes. A Mustang feels "just right". Though a Ford guy I believe in being objective, I went and checked out a Camaro with real intention of buying the COTY; what I found was a car that was just too small and too expensive for what I would be laying out (and I still hate their dash, though it's better than it used to be.) In fact that Magazines were so wrong about the Camaro got me to reconsider and sit into the far-less well received S550 Mustang, which had me thinking buy perhaps 10 seconds after I sat down, and when I did my objective tests (back seat, trunk, f'n cool factor of the interior this car has it all.) the SS - priced too high, didn't need a V8, styling was actually pretty good (except the bow-tie on the front). In short GM is attempting to cut in at the front of the line and didn't bother to take a realistic look at how those they were cutting in front of got there. Why do I care? well I don't know if Ford really bumped up the release date for the S650 because the S550 was an overwhelming success or they got caught up in the reviews of the alpha Camaro. I hope they pay attention to what GM seems to have painstakingly proven; style, value and practicality rule. Lessons to be learned I think Ford has the S550 Mustang perfect, I hope for the S650 they manage to keep it the extremely well-thought out car that the S550 is now. Capitalizing on the failures of the SS and ATS; If Ford is thinking about a rear-drive performance sedan (I haven't heard they are) style and practicality; roomy backseat that makes the driver ask to sit in back now and then. It doesn't need a 5.0 in it that 3.3 V6 would be terrific.

The coming OHC 7.0L is a fact there have been press releases on it, also that it will go into the super duty trucks is a fact. No word official word on whether the confirmed 7.0L which will be made at the windsor plant is a DOHC or SOHC or the intention for it to find it's way to any other dog houses, one can only hope. However this is a 427 c.i. engine, that hardly seems like a coincidence...

I agree with you completely, Ford would be short sighted if they let GM come out with a DOHC V8 that is far more powerful than anything they've got. I get the lemming drafted cafe ratings and all that. On the other hand the sound of a V8 cranking up in the morning, or the burble while cruising down a country road on a warm summer evening nothing like it. Some people want massagers in their chair, I like the sound of a V8. Frankly I don't get why they don't simply use the 6.2L but that's their business not mine, give me a V8 I'm happy to pay for it. Sometimes the intangible that really sells vehicles is hard to identify, (ie a roomy sporty car with in your face styling is apparently what sold the Zeta Camaro, people didn't really care about performance) the sound of the 6.2L in the Raptor was one of those "intangibles". A Raptor is "in your face" and even though the TT3.5L in it is one awesome engine, it's just not in your face enough.