meyeste

The 2015 Expedition with the 3.5 EB is worth checking out. I am a V8 guy too, but that engine won me over for the Expedition.

It definitely appears to be a cobbled together hodge podge of parts - kinda of an interesting effort however based on that absolutely no exterior clues of the final product beyond it's a 4 door liftgate full size SUV made by ford can be taken from this photo, that is probably why the "camoflauge" is not the usual stuff designed to cause migraines when stared at for too long.

I pride myself and owe my success in life - and several NCAA bracket wins to being objective. I am Mustang fan, my brother and I both had a Mustang as a first car and whenever I see one I wished I had kept that '68!!!! However I can appreciate what GM has done with the Camaro, I like the sound of their 6.2L engine. So I have checked one out - sat in a 2016 and a 2015 yesterday (it was raining so they wouldn't let me take one out), and I do not believe my 7 year old son can sit in one. I am 5'11, with the driver seat in the most comfortable position there is perhaps 2" of room, I pushed the front seat as far forward as I was comfortable to make more room and there might be 4" of room between the back of the driver's seat and the back seat - probably closer to 3 & 1/2. 4" of clearance between the back of the driver's seat and the front of the back seat in my opinion is not doable - my son is 50" and growing like a weed, for his sister whom is 56" (she sits on the passenger side and will be able to sit in the front seat soon enough) s its not even a question. Also the rear window is so high up that they would not be abel to see out at all - for my kids that would translate in to motion sickness very quickly. For me the sills in the Camaro were not such a problem - yes they are high, however the interior is so tight you are right there - for me it's not an issue. I don't like the cave like quality of the interior. In the 2015 there is actually quite a bit of room, there was no question in my mind my son and daughter (9) could manage back there for short trips. By comparison the S550 interior is as at least on editor has said - spacious as another has said "a very nice place to be". I have driven the 2015 Premium Mustang GT though I got in for the speed, I very quickly was distracted by how nice the interior was after I played some I set the cruise at 65 and just enjoyed the ride and despite what car magazines write. IMO this is the reality of buying a car, however you feel on the purchase day - 6 months or 2 years later your opinion is what matters. I know a guy that paid thousands extra to have the paddle shift option in an Acura and 2 years later we were driving to lunch and he actually - oh I forgot this car had the paddle shifters, I completely stopped using them. So I'll re-iterate FoMoCo please don't follow the Camaro into converting the back seat into a shelf!!

I do want to second this, and add a couple, it seems when the 2016 Camaro came out perhaps people at Ford were thinking - GM has just killed the S550 in it's infancy. However now we are finding out the reception among those that vote with their own money isn't so warm the Camaro is now a Challenger sales competitor vs. the Mustangs' rival. Why the Camaro isn't selling well is anyone's guess though I don't believe it's due to lack of supply, and educated guess - GM priced it too high and they made the rear seat unusable. I applaud your decision (conscious or not) to maintain rear leg room and a trunk that would actually provide adequate storage for a long weekend get away. And yes I am the guy that frequently comments "my 68 Mustang coupe had a very usable back seat, and that car was noticeably smaller than the current generation - what gives?". I believe it or not I know more than one mid-aged guy with a Porsche 911 that was able to seal the deal because a 911 actually has a back seat to shuttle around kids. So lesson learned performance is important however long term livability and is king for these cars, anyone that says otherwise doesn't have kids and let's be honest most of us with money in our pockets have kids. Perhaps GM will figure out how to move Camaro's, I personally don't believe anyone that is objectively looking at a car as having to fulfill the role of daily transportation and ever has the possibility of more than two getting in the car can look at a Camaro and think "yes this'll work". So my additions; go ahead and make a version of the S550 GT that has the GT350's suspension under it, also and make GT350's front end the standard for the platform - my only criticism of the Mustang is the prominence of the hood however nice it may be. With the S650 PLEASE maintain or even expand the rear seat leg room. I know the M4/911's are used as benchmarks performance wise pay attention to the rear leg room, being able to put kids in the back that have legs is a deal maker.

Thank you for response, as as what I am planning to get, I recently had an Expedition rental and I just absolutely loved it, just as I loved the previous gen Explorer. It's funny the Expedition's suspension is now what 10 years old and still out performs the Tahoe/Suburban. It really is just confidence inspiring to drive. And the 3.5L EB just does exactly what is is supposed to - turns out 20+ mpg when cruising the highway (70-80 mph) and yet has plenty of low-end torque for confident dirt/mud road crawling. I also like the ground clearance it has, I am thinking I'll head into the dealer and see what I can haggle. About all I don't like about the Expedition is getting into parking spots, though I could learn to live with it, I have a full size F150 now and though occasionally I am making 5 point turns to get into or out of a spot at the local Harris Teeter, most of them time I just choose to walk a little further. A Honda pilot is 4' wide between the rear wheel wells, a 2015 Explorer is significantly narrower in the same dimension. With the rear hatch open a Pilot can handle a 4x8 sheet of plywood laying flat on the floor, about 2' would be extending out of the interior. The Odyssey could carry the 4x8 piece of plywood with the rear hatch closed. And no I won't be hauling plywood home however as I say when the sales guy opens the rear hatch of an Explorer I feel like I've seen a disappearing act, as wide as the explorer is I expect the interior open up instead the NLPRacing, on 18 Jan 2016 - 4:10 PM, said: The Honda Odyssey can haul 4' x 8' sheets of plywood, the Honda Pilot cannot. In fact, there is no SUV smaller than an Expedition or Tahoe that can haul 4' x 8' sheets of plywood. While the Explorer is no Jeep Wrangler, for what it is, it seems capable enough off road. The current Explorer is based on a platform that underpinned a Volvo that debuted almost 14 plus years ago. The next Explorer will be all new and I bet it will address most of your concerns, except for the plywood issue, which is probably not much of a concern for 99% of mid size SUV buyers.

I'm sorry am I not in a wish list category? Am I in a " let's lie to ourselves and pretend everyone Ford does is awesome and buy them blindly list" - no, I'm not sure why you are responding I am not asking you to - in no way to I believe J-150 is capable of effecting any type of change. It's a wish list and on my list is the Ford Explorer to have more room, more ground clearance and a better NA engine choice? If you wish that Ford would never improve it's products and sell sub-par vehicles then start your own wish list and say so.

I may, or I may not, if they are moving back to a RWD platform excellent. My favorite in the mid size SUV slot is the Mercedes GLE diesel, it really covers all my complaints with the current Explorer.

I know for a fact the pilot can accommodate a 4x8 piece of ply wood the seats down, not sure of any others. I am not the only one that makes the observation - as wide as the Explorer is, it just doesn't translate to sufficient room in that back. Go and check out a Pilot and then look at the Explorer, plus the NA 3.5 in the Pilot is much livelier. As far as getting an Expedition or Suburban both of which are just so big, parking spots just seem to be getting smaller and smaller, check out the numbers the Pilot is very, very close to the shorter versions Expedition and Suburban.

I am a Ford Fan, my first ford was a '68 Mustang that had a 351 windsor shoe horned into it. There have been a few along the way, I now have an F150 and am looking to replace it. I'd like to get an Explorer however in the test drive I have the following issues - first and foremost - as wide as the exterior is - it really doesn't have much room inside, when the sales guy popped the rear hatch I was shocked at how little room there is back there. At some point a former key design criteria that all vehicles used to abide by got nixed - that is make a 4x8 piece of plywood / drywall fit between the well wells. Now true probably the majority of owners will never put a 4x8 piece of plywood in an Explorer, however the room it affords is so nice - so whomever nixed that constraint you screwed up - put it back if not I'll have to get the only mid-size SUV that still abides that that rule - the award winning Pilot - seriously. Second I get the gas mileage issue however let's give the Explorer an option that allows for more ground clearance if needed - bench mark the Jeep GC if you have to - just add it, the Explorer has too many low hanging parts for my comfort, yes I own land, it has dirt roads that wash out now and then I'd like to be able to traverse them - with an SUV that can carry the family and their stuff. IMO "Utility" is the single most important letter in the SUV acro nym Third and not as big a deal however - while I know the new 3.5L has more power than the old 4.0 in the 2010, yet somehow it doesn't feel like it, it test drove and AWD Explorer with the NA 3.5L V6, floored it at about 30 and I really couldn't tell, sure the sales guy that went 180 and his "trainee" that when 220 were in the vehicle, but I now drive a Honda Odyssey and while it's no screamer, by comparison it's much better. Perhaps Ford should experiment with lower displacement V8's?? Sure there is the 3.5L EB, which I am sure is awesome, however I think Ford has neglected the NA V6 - when compared to a Honda or the new GM 3.6 for example. In any case for Fords' next remake of the Explorer I'd recommend bench marking the Pilot and the Grand Cherokee as far as similar cost competitors that are stand out sellers. The Explorer looks the part, IMO it doesn't walk the part. I am sure the new next Explorer is too far along to change it's design constraints, I have to say if just one of my wish list above were accommodated, it'd be the space request - handling a 4x8 piece of plywood between the wheel wells - actually that'd make a great commercial - probably the most successful one at that.

It seems inevitable that at least some of the GT350's go fast options will make it to the lowly Mustang GT, of particular interest are the MagnaRide shocks, I assuming it's a matter of when not if, these will become and option for the Mustang GT, so 2017? I like the Mustang GT as it is, though I am not a track racer and frankly the Mustang is an option for me to buy now because for the first time the interior is really good, however the suspension is a little rough for me - even on the non-track pack car. Other than that, why bother having different front ends on the GT and GT350? I know the front end was widened to allow for larger tires on the GT350, however those larger tires aren't necessary are they? IMO the lower hood height on the GT350 also helps visibility, which can only be a good thing.

That flat plane V-8 is awesome, any chance of a flat plane 3.9 V-6?

I'm sure by what logic or basis you believe the 3.5EB engine out performs GM's 6.2L engine - it doesn't. In the only straight run off I've seen the Navigator with the higher hp/torque tune version of the 3.5L EB is slower than the Escalade in both 0-60 and the 1/4 mile. Also the GM 6.2L sounds really good, the 3.5EB - you have to admit sounds like crap. I have to be honest I think GM had taken the smarter route here, their 6.2L engine is a beast, it's time for Ford to step it up. The SS with the new 6.2L is going to be a contest winner over the Mustang - like 2 seconds faster around a track and my bet is the 1LE version if they decided to make it is going to give the GT350 a run for the money. GM pulled out what Ford promised to do, came up with a lighter more powerful car.

The 3.5L out performs the GM 6.2L? In the SUV's GM's 6.2L outperforms the Navigator 3.5EB in 0-60 and the 1/4 mile, despite being almost 500lbs heavier. Also the 3.5EB sounds like crap the GM 6.2L sounds really good. I don't race my cars, I don't track them, I however like the sound of a V-8. If Ford stops putting a V-8 in the Mustang I become a Camaro fan.

Call me outdated, but I think a V-8 belongs in the Mustang GT if the 5.0L can't match GM's 6.2 chuck it, get something that will. When Ford stops putting a V-8 in the GT, I'll go check out the Camaro. Realistically while sure the speed of the Mustang is awesome - a sports car

I think there is a strong reason to keep a NA engine in them for racing series compliance reasons. I hate to say it but it seems likely the Camaro is going to dominate the Mustang bottom to top in 2016. I do believe there is a bit more room to get more power out of the 5.0L while sticking with NA. Though IMO the magnetic ride shocks being offered on the SS is actually more significant, no longer will the 1LE version be labeled a "track focused beast". Given the advantage the low end torque SS 1LE package is going to likely have over the GT350 I wouldn't be surprised to see a 1LE equipped SS running neck and neck on a tight track with the GT350. The GT350 with it's high-rev engine is more suited to professional drivers able to keep rev's up and conserve speed through corners, so you're average Joe in a GT350 is likely to get embarrassed by the SS not to mention when the performance oriented versions come out. GM brought it with the 2016 Camaro, I am not a GM fan but have to say objectively it'd be difficult to rationalize not giving them a fair shake.

The reason there is nostalgia for the SVO was that the SVO was faster than the GT of the time, not because anyone particularly liked a turbo.

I love the fuss about "Aluminum" you'd think the metal just came in on a shipment from Mars, GM and Ford have been making cars with Aluminum parts for years, my 99 Olds had aluminum doors, and hood and trunk lid. I got into an accident and sit down for this all the parts were replaced by a local body shop!!! I didn't have to go anywhere special, and there was no fuss about it being Aluminum. Can you imagine? What was really cool about it - it got some minor scratches on the Aluminum door when it was about 12 years old, the paint was gone the metal (there was not a dent) - didn't rust. I am not sure if GM used thicker metal or not, however the doors never received dents in the inevitable door dings, sure they would scratch, but never dented from a door ding. When we replaced that Car - with a Volkswagen (I forgave GM for dropping Oldsmobile, not for jacking up OEM replacement parts 200-400%, or stopping producing them altogether, which is why I had to get rid of that car). The Volkswagen has traditional steel doors, and because we had gotten used to not having to worry so much about door dings with the Olds, had gotten into the habit of not really worrying so much about parking in tight spots. The Volkswagen immediately started getting dents and dings from door impacts. So when people say "I am concerned if the Aluminum can be repaired" my comment to you is the increased durability of the Aluminum body over the steel it replaces will save you in not picking up dents, etc in the first place, which are likely the majority of damage most vehicles are going to incur. When it comes time to repair Aluminum, keep in mind the completed effort is no more likely to rust than the originals, something that cannot be said for replaced or repaired steel body parts.

I test drove a 3.5L AWD Explorer yesterday - I couldn't have been more underwhelmed, I floored it and really couldn't tell - though it did make a lot of noise. I own a Honda Odyssey now and a '99 4x4 F150, am looking to combine the two with one vehicle with AWD / 4x4. My Odyssey with it's 3.5L which lists lower HP and torque, would absolutely run away from the Explorer, without a question no contest. And while the Explorer looks huge from the outside the difference in storage is immense. Sure i get the Odyssey has a lower floor, etc. I'll have to look at Expedition / Tahoe / perhaps a Pilot.

I read somewhere - I believe it was torque news that because the Coyote 5.0 Engine shares architecture with the Jag engine (does it? I don't know) it is complicated and therefore expensive to make and Dearborn would like to replace it for something simpler - which according to what I read was the voodoo engine. It's my understanding the 5.0L has earned a reputation among truck owners as being bullet-proof, rock solid (no knock on the 3.5L) "5.0's don't come back" - a quote from a dealer service rep. So was wondering if there is anything too that, I for one say "keep the 5.0".

I am a fan of the EB engine line and the iconic V-8, as a DIY guy though the simplier nature of the 5.0L appeals to me. If you've read any of my posts you know I have a 99 F150 with 138k miles and am at the point where I am considering replacing it, though a replacement isn't necessary as it is in good shape and was paid off long ago. I test drove an EB last fall and was impressed, that happened to be the day Ford's press release on the Atlas concept came out, so I thought "Larry will have to do for a couple more years...". As I figure if Ford manages to cut 500 lbs from the F150 and adds DI the 5.0L will eak out 20-21 mpg hwy, and with a light foot 16-17 city depending on the stoplight density I'm dealing with - compare that to 16 mpg tops hwy (averaging 60-65) in my current truck. As a Ford fan I believe Ford would position themselves well if they had two engines that competed nicely with GM's 5.3L - let's face it most truck buyers don't fret over 1 mpg, 3-4 makes a difference though. So here is my support for the 5.0L engine, I'd love to order one in Larry's replacement....

I keep tar plugs & required hardware in my vehicles to deal with flat tires. I have had a tire slashed once, but have picked up plenty of nails, screws and even a drill bit, every time a tar plug fixes the hole and I've never had to worry about it again. Most of the time if a nail or screw is picked up by a tire it'll hold air long enough to get you home.

I have a 1999 F150 Lariat SC 4x4 with about 135,000 miles on it. I bought it used and soon found out the truck had been in a severe frontal collision, I hit a deer with it and the body shop told me they'd have to put it on the frame straighter to get the new fender to line up right. I was a little disappointed but I guess the signs were there I just over looked them. As for the truck itself I have had to replace 1 coil, the idler sensor - and a bearing on the rear axle. I am very happy with it - sure it gets 12/15 but it's paid off and all told I have spent $1000 in repairs in 11 years of ownership, and had I not been a fool and gone to the dealer I probably would have spent more like $700. I did test drive a new 2012 EB, it was a good truck I thought hard about buying, the next day the Atlas concept was introduced and given my '99 is running just fine I am going to wait and see. Though I know a few owners of the EB F150's I'd really like to see a DI 5.0L hopefully Ford bows to peer pressure with GM's 5.3L and puts DI on the Coyote for the F150.

I like the Mustang wheels, the Z28 wheels are a new design, people always like new. It's nothing more than that.

I got off point there; I don't believe for a second the EB buyers went for that engine choice because it's a turbo engine, they did it because of the mpg's. Now myself, having lived nearly a half century am a believer in the adage "the simplest solution is the best one", I've seen it proven too many times - often at a cost to me. So someone my age sees a V-8 vs. a turbo six that gets the same mpg numbers, they are going for the simplier solution and that would seem to be the V-8, though I am not a big fan of cylinder deactivation technology. Sure the EB has more torque, I hear that but until Ford puts the 3.5 EB into a super-duty, I and just about everyone else is going to assume this is because when it comes down to it the 3.5 EB isn't up to the task. In any case, the decision is simple here, Ford can either market a 5.0L that gets similar mpg numbers to the 3.5 EB and get those that like the idea of having a V-8 and high mileage or give up those sales to GM.