FordFanForEver Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I would love to see the Mercury Mountaineer version of this vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 (edited) Studying these pictures, I keep thinking it looks just like an Escape, even the same size.. Above I notice the Euro side marker light, like what is tossed onto Mercury's. Has anyone else noticed the sidewalls on those tires? I like the rear tailight's, and I'm glad they are not doing those stupid Jap/Europe tailights on this concept. However I still keep seeing this as an Escape redo, rather than an Exploder. This is much bigger than an Escape. Ford are calling it the replacement for the Explorer so maybe you should too. Edited January 6, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Here's a video of it. I think thats the new F-150 to the left as well. Yes, that was the new F-150 to the left of it. Couldn't really see much more of it than we already know though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I'm actually rather surprised the Explorer is still doing as well as it is! I mean its ridiculously "old school" in its design and execution, has added competition from within in the form of the Edge and Taurus X, and it's STILL managing to maintain volumes around 10,000 a month. Sure, that's nowhere CLOSE to where it once was, but that's hardly volume to flat out ignore. About this concept -- I definitely think it's a step in the right direction to keep the Explorer viable into the future. Let's just hope it ends up going somewhere and doesn't end up collecting dust in a warehouse somewhere next to all of Ford's other concept cars. Well, that's a pretty cool warehouse, IMO. I'd be glad to help Ford empty it out if it gets too full, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Local1111 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 This is much bigger than an Escape.Ford are calling it the replacement for the Explorer so maybe you should too. I'm NOT just referencing the above pic. I've looked at all of them. Most of the other pics seem to show it's real size closer to the Escape than the above one. Ford also has mentioned the downgraded the towing ability when they mentioned it not being based on a Subframe too. In my everyday drives I don't see too many of the Explorers towing anything, I've Never seen 1 explorer in 18 years go offroad other than me taking my wife into a cornfield to let her drive mine. Let's face it, off-roading is just a small minority of the purchasers real world experience. I've had 4 SUV's since '88 and their bought for getting thru snow on streets for me, nothing more. My guess is that the new size will fall exactly between the current Explorer and the Escape in O.A.L/W.. These so far, are concept drawing's. that DASH will never make it to production in anyway shape or form. This would be an upsized Escape, but i'm also afraid it's really a downsized Explorer. I'm not knocking it, I'm just judging the size in the picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Brilliant concept. Purely - it instantly conveys "Explorer" while looking bang up-to-date. And it would look brilliant sitting next to a b-market "Bronco" on the showroom floor. So, the Ford SUV lineup: Bronco - Escape - Edge - Explorer - Flex - Expedition/EL If I were any other manufacturer I may be a bit worried - it looks like Ford has it's A-Game on. Scott Has Ford ever really not had their A-game on when it comes to SUVs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I'm NOT just referencing the above pic. I've looked at all of them. Most of the other pics seem to show it's real size closer to the Escape than the above one. Ford also has mentioned the downgraded the towing ability when they mentioned it not being based on a Subframe too. In my everyday drives I don't see too many of the Explorers towing anything, I've Never seen 1 explorer in 18 years go offroad other than me taking my wife into a cornfield to let her drive mine. Let's face it, off-roading is just a small minority of the purchasers real world experience. I've had 4 SUV's since '88 and their bought for getting thru snow on streets for me, nothing more. My guess is that the new size will fall exactly between the current Explorer and the Escape in O.A.L/W.. These so far, are concept drawing's. that DASH will never make it to production in anyway shape or form. This would be an upsized Escape, but i'm also afraid it's really a downsized Explorer. I'm not knocking it, I'm just judging the size in the picture. pictures can many times be very misleading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I'm NOT just referencing the above pic. I've looked at all of them. Most of the other pics seem to show it's real size closer to the Escape than the above one. Ford also has mentioned the downgraded the towing ability when they mentioned it not being based on a Subframe too. In my everyday drives I don't see too many of the Explorers towing anything, I've Never seen 1 explorer in 18 years go offroad other than me taking my wife into a cornfield to let her drive mine. Let's face it, off-roading is just a small minority of the purchasers real world experience. I've had 4 SUV's since '88 and their bought for getting thru snow on streets for me, nothing more. My guess is that the new size will fall exactly between the current Explorer and the Escape in O.A.L/W.. These so far, are concept drawing's. that DASH will never make it to production in anyway shape or form. This would be an upsized Escape, but i'm also afraid it's really a downsized Explorer. I'm not knocking it, I'm just judging the size in the picture. The closest CUV to this is the Aussie Territory also developed to replace the BOF Explorer. It has a tow capacity of 5,000 lb (2300 kg). I'm thinking you're right about most Explorers and btw, Territorys can tow a 22' caravan in relative comfort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Anyone notice this has the dial-a-gear seen in the XF? Stupid novelty for novelty's sake.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 (edited) Anyone notice this has the dial-a-gear seen in the XF? Stupid novelty for novelty's sake.. See my post, post #40. Here it is, so you dont have to go find it. ----------------- Today, 04:47 AM Post #40 This thing looks GREAT! I like it a lot. I think it's a perfect update to the Explorer. I was considering an Edge/MKX or a Flex, but now this thing makes me wanna wait another year or so and look at one of these. With a nice interior (I'm thinking Expedition/Flex combo) and more production-friendly cues, I think this thing will be a home run, like the original Explorer was. On another note, it appears Ford looked everywhere in it's empire when designing this vehicle. To me the dash looks very similar to the Range Rover (big one), it has EXPLORER (notice the green X like the concept?) written on the hood like all Land Rover models. It has a similar rotary type knob to the XF's gear shifter (although Explorer's is for the GPS navigation system). Also it looks like Mulally/Boeing had a little influence in there, IMO. The ceiling lights look like airplane air vents to me. Overall, I think it's a great looking design. I can't wait to see: 1) this concept (hopefully it'll make it down here somehow) and 2) The production version. This post has been edited by rmc523: Today, 04:24 PM ---------------- Edited January 6, 2008 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue II Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Allegedly it will be here in 2010 ("We will have all of our models replaced or significantly updated by 2010"). It may be GRWD, or it may be D3. The media release is not specific. Shortly, we should have full press kit that provides better specs, and that will have the answer. D3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 (edited) Withdrawn - double post Edited January 6, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Local1111 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 You need to look at the front of an Edge or MKX then, their the same. So why the double post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 You need to look at the front of an Edge or MKX then, their the same. So why the double post? That front end is much shorter than Edge MKX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 That front end is much shorter than Edge MKX. Not by that much... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 No side mirrors. Driver's side has 2 regular doors, passenger's side has a slider and no B-pillar. Clever, but impact regs mean that probably won't happen, unless Ford spent a lot of money on high-strength alloys to reinforce the passenger-side. The slider gets around using a half-pillar (like the 50's 'hardtops') or reverse, 'suicide' hinges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Not by that much... Wow, I stand corrected! Would this then be another D3 product from Oakville? I'm thinking production capacity here.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 What would be needed in a B-pillar free setup would be a tube steel integrated pillar in one of the doors which would secure into the perimeter super structure by an exceptionally strong latching mechanism--with this enormously important caveat: In the event of a serious accident this latch, which would transfer impact forces to the perimeter structure would have to remain operable. If the integrated B pillar worked at preventing cabin intrusion but rendered one or both of the doors inoperable, well, you're still in trouble. The ease of access here is not improved so much by eliminating the B pillar to make that particular engineering challenge worthwhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Wow, I stand corrected!Would this then be another D3 product from Oakville? I'm thinking production capacity here.... Louisville (home of the current Explorer) or Chicago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fords#1Fan Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 No side mirrors. Driver's side has 2 regular doors, passenger's side has a slider and no B-pillar. Clever, but impact regs mean that probably won't happen, unless Ford spent a lot of money on high-strength alloys to reinforce the passenger-side. The slider gets around using a half-pillar (like the 50's 'hardtops') or reverse, 'suicide' hinges. it only has one sliding door? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Louisville (home of the current Explorer) or Chicago. I kinda doubt it will goto Chicago, even though the D3 aren't up to the 230K level yet, I'd expect the new Explorer to be able to do 150K alone by itself, esp if it has improved MPG and it would be impossible to fit that in there...but Ford has stated they aren't closing any more plants, so that makes it all the more interesting where they are going to build products at to keep CAP, LAP and Flat Rock open for the next couple years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 And the net result ends up being a facelifted Taurus X rebadged as an Explorer with the latest ugly bastard super chief grille... With no sliding doors of course.... :boring: Funny,that's what I have been saying for 6 months ! :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pffan1990 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 It is a nice looking vehicle, but I'm curious: 1. Is this still a RWD/4WD vehicle? 2. Or is it on a FWD/AWD platform? 3. What about towing/off-road? Sorry if these have been answered elsewhere, but nowhere in the media reports including Ford's website does it say whether the RWD/4WD architecture is retained. Yes, they say that the off-road could be done but that could be the AWD a-la Land Rover LR2. Anyone know the tow ratings? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 No side mirrors. Driver's side has 2 regular doors, passenger's side has a slider and no B-pillar. Clever, but impact regs mean that probably won't happen, unless Ford spent a lot of money on high-strength alloys to reinforce the passenger-side. The slider gets around using a half-pillar (like the 50's 'hardtops') or reverse, 'suicide' hinges. Forget reinforcing anything. IMHO, it is not possible to pass the side impact regs without a B Pillar, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 ...In the event of a serious accident this latch, which would transfer impact forces to the perimeter structure would have to remain operable... I'm 99% certain there is no requirement that doors operate after the side impact. Read this patent Rear door assembly for automobile Note specifically items 35 and 36, stricker and catch. "The striker cooperates with the catch to enhance engagement in response to the imposition of laterally imposed loads..." (i.e. a side impact) Once those are "engaged", they are not coming disengaged ! BTW, this is widely copied on all 4 door vehicles throughout the industry ! 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.