TomServo92 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Suburban = LargeTahoe = Mid sized Equinox = Useless... Sorry, the Tahoe is full-size SUV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Sorry, the Tahoe is full-size SUV. I guess that would make the Suburban a "fuller" size SUV. It really doesn't matter, the sales decline of the Explorer has nothing to do with the frame that is under the body. It may have something to do with Ford letting it go stale... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I guess that would make the Suburban a "fuller" size SUV. No, just longer. I'm sure that's a concept you aren't too familiar with... :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 No, just longer. I'm sure that's a concept you aren't too familiar with... :P Ouch... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 (edited) Are you that naive to think that the reason the Explorer is not selling is because it is BOF? The market is changing to crossovers and car based utilities - that is why they aren't selling as much anymore, BOF in Explorer is not needed. It is naieve to think all the panthers and Explorers need is refreshening. Edited January 7, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 This leaves Ford in a couple years with one BOF SUV, the Expedition, which is too big for most people, who will buy 4Runners and Nissans instead, they sure as hell aren't going to use a Taurus X to tow and off-road.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 The market is changing to crossovers and car based utilities - that is why they aren't selling as much anymore, BOF in Explorer is not needed. Maybe/maybe not, but it sure as hell needs to be on a beefy RWD platform, not some old FWD car chassis. Maybe we can call it the Ridgeplorer.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 It is naieve to think all the panthers and Explorers need is refreshening. Putting words in one's mouth is not the way to win an argument. But, what ever makes you feel secure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder2299of7839 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 whatever phord cobbles together to replace the panther, will do two things, piss off whatever retail customers the dealer network has been able to keep loyal, and two, piss off fleet customers who pay the bills for all the other cars ford is pushing down our throats. and third, if its any size at all, it will be heavier and more cumbersome than what we have now, (its currently 624 lbs heavier than a mustang)and since I haven't heard much rumor about an 8 cylinder ecoflush, I assume it will be a v-6 turd as well. all wonderful selling points if you are Ralph Nader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 (edited) whatever phord cobbles together to replace the panther, will do two things, piss off whatever retail customers the dealer network has been able to keep loyal,and two, piss off fleet customers who pay the bills for all the other cars ford is pushing down our throats. and third, if its any size at all, it will be heavier and more cumbersome than what we have now, (its currently 624 lbs heavier than a mustang)and since I haven't heard much rumor about an 8 cylinder ecoflush, I assume it will be a v-6 turd as well. all wonderful selling points if you are Ralph Nader. :rolleyes: is that before, or after you pick up the pieces of Europe. Edited January 7, 2008 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 (edited) Putting words in one's mouth is not the way to win an argument. But, what ever makes you feel secure. Those words have been uttered on these boards many times by panther supporters. It's OK for you to insinuate I'm naieve I can take that on the chin. We replaced Explorer down here 5 years ago successfully with Falcon based Territory CUV. 'Nuff said. Maybe we can call it the Ridgeplorer.. Good one! I was hoping it was RWD myself as we're due for a Territory replacement in 2010. Maybe you can call it Territory and retire the Explorer name. It was registered in the US by Ford last year by the way, I checked. Edited January 7, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder2299of7839 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 car based utilities? isnt that what we used to call station wagons? jeep had one with 4wd in what? 1948? what will they think of next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I guess that would make the Suburban a "fuller" size SUV. It really doesn't matter, the sales decline of the Explorer has nothing to do with the frame that is under the body. It may have something to do with Ford letting it go stale... Tahoe is to Chevy what the Expedition is to Ford. Suburban = Expedition EL You don't see people calling Expedition a midsize SUV do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 (edited) whatever phord cobbles together to replace the panther, will do two things, piss off whatever retail customers the dealer network has been able to keep loyal,and two, piss off fleet customers who pay the bills for all the other cars ford is pushing down our throats. and third, if its any size at all, it will be heavier and more cumbersome than what we have now, (its currently 624 lbs heavier than a mustang)and since I haven't heard much rumor about an 8 cylinder ecoflush, I assume it will be a v-6 turd as well. all wonderful selling points if you are Ralph Nader. By your figures that affects 30,000 retail customers (50% of Grand Marquis is fleet) That replacement RWD platform would be the the one Ford AUS and Ford NA are working on. And the V6 turd you're talking about is in fact a 400 HP version of the Ecoboost. There's are also the 5.0 version of the Jag V8 and the 6.2 liter DOHC V8 But go ahead and wallow in self pity. Edited January 7, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder2299of7839 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 a 400 hp v-6 isn't near as smooth or torquey as a 400 hp v8. my grand national was a great car, but if I dropped a 455 in, it might have been a better car. I like torque, not a 4000 rpm replacement for it. and I have no self pity, I'm happy with what I have, I'm just disappointed that I cant ever have a new one again, but then ford is saving me a fortune in missing car payments. my TC does everything I ask of it, I'm happy. when its too slow, the Marauder does what I want very well, sweeping curves at 135? no problem, when that not enough, hook up the programmer, and I have more at the touch of a button. when both are too tame, I have a 429CJ that idles smooth as glass, and will make my neck hurt. and my fleet of trucks each with its own calling and duties. too bad my kids will only have limited choices and mabey even driverless cars to look forward to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 a 400 hp v-6 isn't near as smooth or torquey as a 400 hp v8. a 400 hp GTTDI V6 should be very smooth. BMW has a very nice TT I6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 a 400 hp GTTDI V6 should be very smooth. BMW has a very nice TT I6. I can tell you from first hand experience that's a very nice engine (the 300-hp TT I6), placed in a very nice car. They also are debuting a 4.4L Twin-Turbo V8 engine in the X6 xDrive 50i. It produces 400-hp w/ 450 lb-ft of torque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I can tell you from first hand experience that's a very nice engine (the 300-hp TT I6), placed in a very nice car. They also are debuting a 4.4L Twin-Turbo V8 engine in the X6 xDrive 50i. It produces 400-hp w/ 450 lb-ft of torque. Shhh, your making me salivate. I would love to have a 2008 535. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Shhh, your making me salivate. I would love to have a 2008 535. I'm sorry. I know I love driving our 335i. It's a great car. Ours is this color if you were wondering what Atlantic Blue is, except ours is a convertible (hardtop) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 a 400 hp v-6 isn't near as smooth or torquey as a 400 hp v8. my grand national was a great car, but if I dropped a 455 in, it might have been a better car. I like torque, not a 4000 rpm replacement for it. That was then, this is now. Smoothness, should be about the same, but with turbocharging and direct fuel injection and variable valve timing, it's a whole new game. Check the torque curves for the Eco-Boost I-4 and V-6 on that video posted elsewhere. Seriously, from what looks like 1,500 rpm, the torque curve is flatter than Utah. Never seen anything like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I like torque, not a 4000 rpm replacement for it and I have no self pity, I'm happy with what I have, I'm just disappointed that I cant ever have a new one again, but then ford is saving me a fortune in missing car payments. 340 lbft between 2,000 and 5,000 from 3.5 liters sounds rather torquey to me. I'm sure Ford has even more great engines coming but hey, by all means live in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 a 400 hp GTTDI V6 should be very smooth. BMW has a very nice TT I6. I6 vs V6...completely different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 (edited) I6 vs V6...completely different. 1163 HP @ 6500 Ford XR6 turbo going nuts! Falcon F6 Typhoon vs HSV R8 (Pontiac G8 GT) Crosby Stills & Nash - Teach Your Children Edited January 7, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 (edited) Bring back the Taurus SHO and change the grille on the Fusion to this, And the Tuarus numbers will increase! Edited January 7, 2008 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcanton40 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Bring back the Taurus SHO and change the grille on the Fusion to this, And the Tuarus numbers will increase! Amen brother ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.