TBirdStangSkyliner

I don't love the grill and the curvature of the windshield, but everything else is nice. The windshield reminds me too much of the outgoing generation, which should be sent-off with a serious exorcism of any assembly plants involved during its tenure. Styling niggles aside, This new one looks good enough to do well if the platform is as much improved as the specs and details indicate.

I hear it all the time in my office. We have a large fleet of vehicles and no one ever wants to end-up wit an "Exploder".

I like this so much better than the offal thing they saddled the Explorer name with for the last few years. Maybe the term "Exploder" can now start to be forgotten. This one looks nice and hopefully has the chops to be more than a high riding Taurus station wagon.

https://autoweek.com/article/car-news/ford-will-build-all-vehicles-five-platforms A bunch of outlets are indirectly reporting that the current Mustang platform is on its way out. It isn't in the five anounced by Ford for its future. Something better is coming in CD6. Yes, a muscle car platform could eventually, with enough investment, be modified into anything, but why double, triple down on something that wasn't designed under the modern paradigm of light, rigid, efficient modularity. Coupes made by all the luxury makers fit various combinations of great handling and comfort for a couple of people. The Mustang wasn't designed or invested in for the fulfillment of either of those purposes.

Glad I could amuse you fuzz, but there is no direct luxury coupe analog to the classic American Muscle Car. The Mustang platform is a perfectly fine competitor to the Camaro and Challenger, but unlike the GM platform, it wasn't designed to be as readily modular for other uses. Go to weekend events at any road course venue and you will see that even with the IRS, Mustangs are universally considered the most ill handling cars in attendance (Challengers usually don't show and Camaros are just slightly better). Most club sport guys loath their attendance. The sport segment of coupes made by luxury makers isn't going to be in the platforms lexicon without a lot more investment than could ever be recouped (pun intended). Also, drive some coupes weighted towards luxury by luxury brands and you will discover the same magnitude of difference in ride, comfort, visibility, etc.. Unless you think a Lincoln coupe needs to be little more than a rebadged Mustang with a Continental kit trunk and RWD only, there isn't a niche where it could be competitive with rival makers.

A Lincoln on the current Mustang platform would be totally inappropriate. This platform's ergos, build quality potential, AWD limitations, and NVH, are just too far behind what Lincoln needs to be. CD6 should lend itself well, though, for building a really memorable Mark X. I've always liked Mustangs, but they are just real far behind what luxury sports coupe now offer in both luxury and sport.

I agree and disagree. CUV's that don't look like real SUV's seem to be picking up plenty of steam in sales. I like sedans and recently saved 34% off MSRP on a fully loaded one that was almost two model years old and still unsold. Three box mid-sizers just aren't selling in high trims. Good for those of us swimming against the stream, not good for car makers, though.

The issue with the thesis of this thread is that cars and SUV's aren't cross-shopped. Cars and CUV's are, though, and the lines have become so blurred that he only definitive distinction is the third box in the shape of the typical sedan. Redesign the Fusion with a couple of inches extra drive height, make it a wagon without exactly looking lke one, shrink the ridiculously enormous "A" pillar, barf up some cladding on it, and voila - it will sale again.

Three things seem apparent, 1) Toyota is the behemoth that can stay in every segment they desire through cyclical changes in tastes and fuel prices. 2) Soothsaying posters are more full of BS as the voracity of their statements increase. The mostly departed Mr Jensen berated, for years, anyone who suggested that there could be rational business cases made for new generations of; Expeditions, Navigators, Broncos, Rangers, RWD's, and for the platform we now know as the CD6. 3) Having flexible enough platforms to adapt to shifting market demands and energy prices is smart design and economics.

As a current Expedition EL Limited owner, I really like this new one a lot. I'm only at 60K miles in the I own. But, in about three years I'll be a happy buyer. I particularly like the new one's front end. The side treatment is nice, too. The interior looks great. Well done, Ford.

I like the revised front treatment a lot better than what the current model wears. It is much more in scale and looks more styled and sophisticated.

I see it that way too, but it is hard to tell for sure. The single door and change in wheel size and greenhouse proportions all mess with the overall comparisons.

This makes way more sense to me than those who are predicting the inverse. A short wheelbase with an extended rear seems totally dorky and the exact opposite of what Lincoln would want for ride quality and second row room. From my travels across the western 5/8ths of the country (I have hit every state in this region, except New Mexico, in the last year), I just don't see many SWB Expy's/Navi's new enough to carry the redesigned grill-work. I don't know the sales figures, but the shorties seem to be waning out-west. Less room and a choppier ride for almost the same cost and fuel mileage isn't a very appealing equation. Any enhanced offroad capability for the short Expy's is, at best, murky or irrelevant to most buyers. It's not like anyone equates this class of vehicle to the Bronco's of 45 years ago.

I am moderately surprised at the number of comments wanting this vehicle to be something other than what it is. It is a full-sized, truck-based SUV. From a guy who actually buys these, this concept easily projects to a desirable production vehicle.

I hope the production version has a more ample greenhouse. I'd also lilt to see the full-length character line look less like the Suburban's. Otherwise, I like it a lot.

- I just drove both today with my post from this morning fresh in my kind. Being extra aware, I did notice that my Expedition's front suspension makes thumping noises on bumps that are a little more audible than in the Suburban. This is comparing a 40,000 mile Limited in private ownership against a federal fleet, base Suburban with 45,000 miles on the odometer. This should probably be addressed in a redesign as noise gives people feedback that is subconsciously assigned to quality. The Burb compresses and rebounds multiple times from similar bumps that the Expedition tends to handle in one cycle. This particular Burb also carries more sidewall in the tires so that could be a factor in the comparison. I personally prefer the Expy type of ride tuning, but others might like the ever oscillating, but slightly softer ride that is reminiscent of the later Packard sedans. I find your Ford dealer/used Suburban scenario the most interesting and possibly legit experience I've ever heard on this. However, I still see this issue as a "suburban legend", as I know guys who defend the comfort of their roached out Wranglers, Tacoma's, Dodge 3/4 tons (with lift kit and aggressively lugged tires), and Outbacks on the highway but knock the ride of Expys for not being as smooth as Burbs. Either big SUV is an extremely luxurious ride compared to those.

I think the supposed ride superiority of the Suburban is a hugely repeated myth. I was helping a friend look for a Suburban or Expedition recently. Every sleazy used car lot salesman we encountered Trumped this out. I hear the most automotively illiterate Burb owners doing the same. These guys couldn't define rebound, dampening, oversteer, understeer, or good beer verse Budweiser, but they just know the Burb rides better. I own an EL and drive or ride in Surburbans a couple of times a month. They are a bit different but both are comfortable rides. IRS will always feel a little different than buggy springs. My EL makes a little noise in the front suspension when backing off the partially shaved-down curve in my driveway. That is the only knock I have on it's suspension.

Hopefully, Ford decision makers see this thread and learn that they need to kick-off the next generation with a strong campaign that establishes the EL in people's minds as a superior choice to the Suburban. If the Excursion name was to be recycled, and I am not sure that it should be, I'd maybe go backward with it and use it for the short wheelbase model. An excursion is a shorter trip than an expedition in the world of adventuring. Having it not be the biggest vehicle would help with the stigma that it got the first time around. But then, you have the EL named something associated with a shorter SUV. I don't see a real clean way out of quagmire Ford created by ignoring the Suburban-class segment for decades and then coming in with a whimper in the realm of marketing. Maybe it is just sticking to current names and advertising better. Maybe it is renaming the Expedition EL to Touring Expedition.

It isn't rare for people to ask me when I say I have an Expedition EL if it s the short one or the one that is a little longer. When I open the hatch and push the bttons to fold the seats, people are unversally surprised at the room. The EL has to be one of the most misunderstood, under the radar, vehicles in production.

Life is too short for any version of Windows. At best, you have three years before your once fast and new machine runs like it has pen full of overfinished durocs on its back. I've ran all sorts of virus protection software and utilities to remove bloatware and shutdown unwanted processes. It just seems lke the only solution is to periodically re-image. I'm officially done with any of the devices runnng any version.

I don't dispute your points. "EL" just doesn't translate into "extended length" for most people, though. It is too much like the monikers for trim levels used by everyone for decades, including Ford. There have been "SEL's", "LE's", "ELT's", and many other similar names for trim levels. When target-market people in places like Montana don't realize that Ford has been producing a Suburban-class vehicle for five years, something is broken.

As an EL owner, I would be in favor of the next generation getting a name unique from the Expedition. I have to explain to dang near everyone that the EL is like a Suburban in length. These have to be as popular by proportion in my market as anywhere in the country and just over a bupkis number of people are aware that the Expedition can be had in a length more or less equivalent to GM's products. When a company's vehicles have to be described in terms of their competitors, they are at a big disadvantage.

I would put Ram back into Dodge as a century of brand heritage and recognition has value. Then, you would have a fairly complete brand with the trucks, Durango, Challenger, and Charger. Adding in a viable "C" class CUV would make it whole. Jeep just needs better quality manufacturing and a larger, three row SUV. Chrysler is the enigma as the new Pacifica is about the only product with any chance of volume. Perhaps, more upscale "C" and "D" class CUV's would help. The next generation 300 is supposedly well into developement and is shared with an Alfa model. If it's development cost is mostly incurred, I'd keep it going forward as there might be enough volume in America for it's last surviving large sedan (Taurus and Impala are rumored to be dead cars walking) and Alfa ain't going to cut the mustard on it's own. Fiat could then be all FWD cars, the Spider, the Ducato, and "A" and B" class CUV's. Any alliances for joint platform development should be pursued. Mullaly styled jettisoning of unprofitable plants and products should have long ago been implemented. This is nearly impossible, though, in Italy where labor protection and politics are cozy bedfellows.

You are probably right, but doing the business of manufacturing in Toledo is a bit better proposition than in Solihull.

I think it depends on what the CD6 Explorer ends up being. The GC is a real 4x4 with a real differential. It is unibody as we know, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. The current Explorer is a high-ish looking CUV without a 4WD system. Engineering a major shortcut that has performance limitations might make some sense for saving costs, but that contrasts with charging an equal MSRP. I have not seen any consistent information on what CD6 will mean for the Explorer.