Explorer America Concept

[RichardJensen]

This is a very simplified diagram, but it illustrates a point.

 

Consider that the dark green ovals represent customers for each brand listed.

 

Now, assume that the ovals around each brand represent customers that shopped that brand but decided against purchasing it (for clarity, I didn't put the ovals as close together as they probably should be).

 

What you want to do is find out what customers that -bought- your brand have in common with people that -shopped- your brand and bought elsewhere. You then improve that aspect of your product and message, and convert more of those shoppers into buyers.

 

This is how you organically grow your brand.

 

Alternatively you could do what is shown in the second attachment. This is what Cadillac is trying to do...

 

While attempting to retain existing customers, you develop product which does not strongly appeal to existing customers. This is what some of the "RWD Cougar!!!!!!!" "FoE imports!!!!!" plans sound like to me.

 

Bear in mind that this is an extremely simplistic diagram of one approach to the question of brand identity in a crowded marketplace, but I hope it helps illustrate why I have such a conservative attitude about what Ford should do with Mercury.

Edited January 7, 2008 by RichardJensen

[theoldwizard]

Explorer is replacing Explorer. I can't understand the wailing and gnashing of teeth over "loosing" the Explorer's off-road ability. Lets face it, the Explorer has never been a "serious off-roader"...

True !

 

Serious "off road" vehicles need a way to "lock" the center diff and limited slip front and rear.

[RichardJensen]

Serious "off road" vehicles need a way to "lock" the center diff and limited slip front and rear.

You can't lock the center diff on Ford's AWD system because there isn't a center diff. It's a clutchpack. Some of the systems (Explorer/Expy) have 4-hi and 4-lo, which is probably equivalent.

 

OTOH, with Ford's sensor driven AWD system, I would question the need for a locking center diff, as the system can't be fooled into sending 100% of the torque to a wheel with no traction (e.g. Torsen systems), nor does the system need wheelspin to activate the system (hydraulic systems).

Edited January 7, 2008 by RichardJensen

[mustang_sallad]

sheesh... way to finally get back on topic richard... aren't you the moderator?

 

I'm loving this concept and the tied in engine announcements. The idea of an explorer with a 4-banger sounded strange at first, but when you look at the numbers, you gotta hold off any complaints until you see how it holds up. I'm having trouble picturing how this thing will progress into production, but I think my favourite aspect is the shape of the window glass, and I think that has a good chance of sticking around. Not at all a fan of the grill. I really like the tail lights though, almost like a new Mini's.

 

Unibody makes sense to me. Might be a few who use their explorer as a tough little hauler, and even fewer who took the thing off road, but I think there will be hardly anybody who will find the next explorer incapable of what they wanna use it for. And fuel saving benefits will be much appreciated.

[Blue II]

lets see:

 

B1 platform

C2

CD3 or EUCD2

D3

GRWD

 

Four Utility's, Expedition, Flex, Edge, Explorer.

[soupy]

Judging by the responses so far, I don't think too many people here have ever seen a B&W TV.

 

But I like your humor.

 

Signed: White Fang

 

Raah-oh raaah!

[silvrsvt]

Four Utility's, Expedition, Flex, Edge, Explorer.

 

no more escape?

[Anthony]

Four Utility's, Expedition, Flex, Edge, Explorer.

 

No more Escape?

[RichardJensen]

JINX.

 

Now poster #208 can't talk until somebody says his name!!

[silvrsvt]

JINX.

 

Now poster #208 can't talk until somebody says his name!!

 

ROLF

[sullynd]

I had a 91 Explorer before my Escape. The Escape always seemed similar in size to it, and the current Explorer much larger. Is this Explorer going back down in size and negating the need for the Escape? (Seems hard to believe if it is D3) Seems to be losing a bunch of equity in the name, and letting go of a market Ford dominated for a long time.

 

Please don't tell me Ford is now seeing the Edge as the Escape replacement.

Edited January 8, 2008 by sullynd

[silvrsvt]

Please don't tell me Ford is now seeing the Edge as the Escape replacement.

 

Well some of the experts here where stating that LOL

 

I'm sure that the Kuga will be the Escape replacement in a couple years, just hope its not "feminized" styling wise like other Cute SUV's...but then again according to something I saw/read some place, Explorers are more likely to be a womans SUV, where as a Jeep Cherokee or Grand Cherokee would be a mans SUV....

[sullynd]

Well some of the experts here where stating that LOL

 

I'm sure that the Kuga will be the Escape replacement in a couple years, just hope its not "feminized" styling wise like other Cute SUV's...

 

Kuga's styling is not to my liking. The Edge isn't really either. The Expedition and Flex are too big. If this Explorer is priced similarly to the current unit, I may have to shop elsewhere when I'm finally in the market (My Escape just turned 5 and is now all mine, I'm trying to convince myself to keep it until the wheels fall off, and fortunately there isn't a must-have vehicle for me at the moment)

[pcsario]

GREAT concept. Hopefully FNA's idiotic production designers don't ruin this one, ala Zephyr.

 

Pair them up with a 170k a year Lincoln brand (40k MKX, 35k MKS, 40k MKZ, 30k MKF, 25k Navigator), and you've got a brand that, combined, outsells Mazda.

 

Yeah, especially when you consider Mazda just sells their products in the US... oh wait.

 

Richard's obsession with a brand aimed at women, with effeminated styling, is quite telling.

[RichardJensen]

Yeah, especially when you consider Mazda just sells their products in the US... oh wait.

 

Richard's obsession with a brand aimed at women, with effeminated styling, is quite telling.

1) As though Mercury's products are not shared with the much larger Ford division.... Oh wait. Mercury isn't Ford.

 

2) No other brand has taken this route before and I think it's a rather smart move.

[theoldwizard]

You can't lock the center diff on Ford's AWD system because there isn't a center diff.

Your splitting hairs.

 

A "differential" is simply a mechanical device that allows 2 output shafts to operate at different speeds. The device in any 4x4/AWD is traditional called a "center differential" regardless of exactly how it accomplishes the task.

 

The Haldex Limited Slip Coupling certainly does this, up to a point. The advantage of the Haldex LSC is that the larger the speed difference in the 2 output shafts, the more pressure that is applied to the clutch packs to bring them into synchronization. If the never was a difference in output shaft speeds, the Haldex LSC would never engage and one shaft would always "freewheel".

 

Another way to look at it. Say your pulling a boat out of the water and the ramp is a bit slippery. With a Haldex, the second axle will not start to engaged until there is "slip" (difference in speed) between it and the primary axle. You would actually see the front wheels of a edge start to spin before the rear wheels would engaged.

 

Some of the systems (Explorer/Expy) have 4-hi and 4-lo, which is probably equivalent.

Similar functionality, but operates totally different. These are more similar to the old fashion systems that had an extra lever (or two) in the cab. IIRC, the switch in the cab simple send a signal to a vacuum "motor" that moves the lever.

 

Bottom line, serious off-roader (and I don't consider any of Fords SUVs or CUVs to be serious off-road vehicles) want a locking center diff. Soccer Moms and Dads (Explorer buyers) aren't serious off-roaders and will probably love the Haldex LSC.

 

(Off topic, but how does Honda get away without violating Haldex patent on their Element AWD system ?)

[suv_guy_19]

Your splitting hairs.

 

A "differential" is simply a mechanical device that allows 2 output shafts to operate at different speeds. The device in any 4x4/AWD is traditional called a "center differential" regardless of exactly how it accomplishes the task.

 

The Haldex Limited Slip Coupling certainly does this, up to a point. The advantage of the Haldex LSC is that the larger the speed difference in the 2 output shafts, the more pressure that is applied to the clutch packs to bring them into synchronization. If the never was a difference in output shaft speeds, the Haldex LSC would never engage and one shaft would always "freewheel".

 

Another way to look at it. Say your pulling a boat out of the water and the ramp is a bit slippery. With a Haldex, the second axle will not start to engaged until there is "slip" (difference in speed) between it and the primary axle. You would actually see the front wheels of a edge start to spin before the rear wheels would engaged.

Similar functionality, but operates totally different. These are more similar to the old fashion systems that had an extra lever (or two) in the cab. IIRC, the switch in the cab simple send a signal to a vacuum "motor" that moves the lever.

 

Bottom line, serious off-roader (and I don't consider any of Fords SUVs or CUVs to be serious off-road vehicles) want a locking center diff. Soccer Moms and Dads (Explorer buyers) aren't serious off-roaders and will probably love the Haldex LSC.

 

(Off topic, but how does Honda get away without violating Haldex patent on their Element AWD system ?)

 

Ford doesn't use Haldex, at least in Edge, Taurus, and relatives.

[RichardJensen]

Your splitting hairs.

 

A "differential" is simply a mechanical device that allows 2 output shafts to operate at different speeds. The device in any 4x4/AWD is traditional called a "center differential" regardless of exactly how it accomplishes the task.

Up to that time, Borg-Warner engineers had intended to use the clutch in conjunction with a mechanical differential. But, in 1988, they realized that electronic control had opened a new avenue. "We asked ourselves: "Why do we need a differential?'" Schoenbach recalls. "There was all of that iron, all that weight, all that cost. And here, we saw that we could control the clutch pack very precisely without it." Thus was born the Torque-On-Demand transfer case.

http://www.designnews.com/article/CA151269.html

 

The key fact is that Control Trac & Intelligent AWD do not use a center differential mechanism.

 

Driveline windup is avoided because the system uses computer controlled clutchpacks.

Edited January 8, 2008 by RichardJensen

[Edstock]

Very interesting article.

[theoldwizard]

http://www.designnews.com/article/CA151269.html

 

The key fact is that Control Trac & Intelligent AWD do not use a center differential mechanism.

 

Driveline windup is avoided because the system uses computer controlled clutchpacks.

Some people just "have to be right" all of the time. Perhaps you should should seek therapy !

 

How a "device" allows its 2 output shafts to achieve different speeds does not change the fact that it falls in the broad definition of a differential, despite what the marketeers tell you.

 

Yes, todays Explorer has ControlTrac as 1 option. They also offer an AWD "Torque on Demand" option, which sounds a lot like a Haldex LSC. The Mountaineer only offers the AWD system. I would like to see the "take rate" of both systems. I'll bet, combined, it is less than 50%.

 

Okay, to make you happy, I'll stop calling it a center differential. Is "transfer case" acceptable to you ?

[Pioneer]

No frame - strike one

3500 lb. towing capacity - strike two

Seating for only up to six - strike three

 

Guess I will have to shop somewhere else. Ford had to try really hard to lose an employee as a customer, but they really did a hell of a job.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Pioneer

[RichardJensen]

How a "device" allows its 2 output shafts to achieve different speeds does not change the fact that it falls in the broad definition of a differential, despite what the marketeers tell you.

You know what? I think you're right. I'm being a bit too picky about this.

[Noah Harbinger]

No frame - strike one

3500 lb. towing capacity - strike two

Seating for only up to six - strike three

 

Guess I will have to shop somewhere else. Ford had to try really hard to lose an employee as a customer, but they really did a hell of a job.

 

1) It's already been refuted. A unibody vehicle can be as good as a BOF vehicle in any respect.

2) A ) The current base explorer only has a 3500lb towing capacity. B ) who said the new explorer would be limited to 3500 lbs?

3) Going from 'optionally seats 7' to 'seats 6' and all of a sudden you're like "OMG? Teh Suxors!"? Do you have 5 kids? Do you have ANY kids?

 

Anyhow, if they lose one Pioneer and gain two real customers, then all's the better.

 

Besides, I haven't heard you speak well of a Ford product since I first came to this board.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Noah Harbinger

[Moosetang]

Does seem like people are inventing reasons to hate this one.

"OMGZORS, the front seats recline 2% more slowly than the current Explorer!"

"WTF, the mass-to-deer ratio has been lowered to the point where complete road splatter will not be fully achieved!"

"This sucks, Bob Lutz said so and everything he says/does is right so it must suck"

[suv_guy_19]

Does seem like people are inventing reasons to hate this one.

"OMGZORS, the front seats recline 2% more slowly than the current Explorer!"

"WTF, the mass-to-deer ratio has been lowered to the point where complete road splatter will not be fully achieved!"

"This sucks, Bob Lutz said so and everything he says/does is right so it must suck"

 

that was good, and so true.