suv_guy_19 Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Grand Cherokee's retail sales in Canada are 75% diesel. I'd like some proof of that. I see lots of GCs and I've NEVER seen a diesel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patate Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 I'd like some proof of that. I see lots of GCs and I've NEVER seen a diesel. http://www.media.chrysler.com/newsrelease....976&mid=140 "The Jeep Grand Cherokee helped drive Chrysler Canada’s solid results in June, with 75 percent of Grand Cherokee retail customers selecting the fuel-efficient and eco-friendly 3.0L Mercedes clean diesel engine" Don't forget, the diesel has been in the GC for less than a year. Here in Quebec, almost all new GCs I see have the 3.0L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 http://www.media.chrysler.com/newsrelease....976&mid=140 "The Jeep Grand Cherokee helped drive Chrysler Canada’s solid results in June, with 75 percent of Grand Cherokee retail customers selecting the fuel-efficient and eco-friendly 3.0L Mercedes clean diesel engine" Don't forget, the diesel has been in the GC for less than a year. Here in Quebec, almost all new GCs I see have the 3.0L Almost none of them have them here. Must be a Central Canada thing. It wasn't that I thought you were trying to be deceitful, I just couldn't believe it was true. I guess it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Well, good for Chrysler. They need some sales, and it may keep Ford more open-minded about small diesels in NA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calypsocoral Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 We could be looking at this kinda wrong. There are several vehicles in the industry that are native unit-body, with a ladder-frame welded into it. The Honda Pilot, Ridgeline, and Suzuki Grand Vitara, to name a few. Why wouldn't Ford just take a RWD Unit Body, and add a ladder frame for the Explorer? It really shouldn't be all that hard. The only real difficulty would be keeping weight down. Still, it shouldn't be quite as heavy as a Sport Trac, regardless... Use the 3.7L V6 as the standard powertrain, with an EB 3.5 as a step-up. If you REALLY NEED a V8, I imagine the 5.0 V8 going into the Mustang shouldn't be too hard to fit, assuming, of course, a longitudinal powertrain orientation... Going to a unit-body doesn't necessarily mean giving up capability, just a little less towing capacity. I don't know very many people who tow with an Explorer anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Is Ford trying to make the Explorer more fuel efficient? Or fix the Taurus X and get saled by calling it an Explorer? I vote for the first option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 My unit-body Jeep Liberty sucks. Period. My V-8 Explorer gets better fuel economy than the V-6 Liberty. I don't really know about economy, but I drove my cousin's Liberty with the 3.7 and it was all around horrible in my opinion. I don't know what people see in them. Horrible quality interior, bad panel gaps on the outside, loud/noisy engine.....the list goes on and on. My cousin and her family have been die hard Jeep people as long as I've been alive. The only exception to that is the Suburban they got for business purposes (before the Commander came out, otherwise I wouldn't be surprised to see one of those in their driveway). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 I would like to see Ford keep the Explorer BOF as there is already enough uni body crap in the line up. If they could trim some weight possibly and put the 3.7 in then maybe we could see some a good increase in mileage? The current Explorer is a very nice vehicle and the Explorer nameplate most certainly cannot die off. Ford has enough crossovers, they should keep their 2 BOF SUVs and put diesel engines on them. Grand Cherokee's retail sales in Canada are 75% diesel. This should keep the Explorer as a capable TRUCK, because that's what it's supposed to be. The "die is cast", the decisions have been made, there is no going back !! The success of the Edge and Taurus X proved to Ford that America wants a tough "looking" SUV but, other than an occasional dirt road, they rarely get dirty. You just can not make a "light" BOF without going to exotic materials. The current Explorer/SporTrac are a going to make a good starting point for the new F-100 and the next gen F-150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Greene Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Didn't that teaser Explorer we saw recently have a 2.0 Eco boost engine making about 250 HP? That would work in lighter RWD Explorer. RE V6 mileage VS V 8. The Explorer V8 has a 6 speed trans....highway gas mileage lightly loaded mostly a function of cruising RPM. Drop those RPM's to 2000 at 70 or less, and everything gets good mileage. But around town, lightly loaded with easy touch, and smaller engine does better. Anyone should know that. It's not very difficult to beat the new EPA ratings, especially on highway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 The purpose for a full frame is 1. strength to hold all the parts of the chassis together, and 2. body rigidity so that the passengers don't feel like the vehicle is shaking apart. To improve on crash tests, and body rigidity, a modern day track is built with a mostly unit body front and cab sitting ontop of a full frame. This makes the full frame some what redundant and add extra weight. It is hard to build a crumple zone into a frame alone and the frame does not protect you from any collision above the frame. In a real truck you need the strength of the full frame to keep the wheels from pulling off the vehicle when pulling a full load, heavy trailer, or hold things together when jumping ditches. I would assume that serious truck buyers would buy the future F100 based Bronco. A future Explorer could get away with being unit body, but would require RWD and a solid rear sub-frame to attach the rear suspension and trailer hitch to the unit body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 RE V6 mileage VS V 8. The Explorer V8 has a 6 speed trans....highway gas mileage lightly loaded mostly a function of cruising RPM. Sorry. Weight is the biggest contributer to the fuel economy equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 (edited) To improve on crash tests, and body rigidity, a modern day track is built with a mostly unit body front and cab sitting on top of a full frame. This makes the full frame some what redundant and add extra weight. It is hard to build a crumple zone into a frame alone ... Not really ! Look that the front frame "horns" on any pickup truck ! They have "ripples" and holes so that they can collapse. The impact is passed through the frame and not into any of the body structures. and the frame does not protect you from any collision above the frame. Sure, if you are hit by someone with a 4X4 and a 6" lift ! A future Explorer could get away with being unit body, but would require RWD and a solid rear sub-frame to attach the rear suspension and trailer hitch to the unit body. IF it needs to tow 5000 LBS ! The Edge tows 4000 lbs with FWD/AWD and no frame (although I thing 3500 lbs is a more reasonable expectation) Edited July 12, 2008 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Falcon sedans, Utility pick up and Territory are rated at 5,000 lb (2300 Kg) A BOF vehicle is still more labor intensive to build compared to a unit body, that's the main reason why manufacturers have moved on from BOF construction. There is also evidence that a unitbody dissipates crash energy away from the impact site much better. Multiple vector paths are designed in the unit body to enable the crash force energy to be released by multiple paths in the body framing, something that shows up in side impact testing. A BOF can have an acceptable side impact test provided the Frame bolting is conducive to vectoring the stress away. An unacceptable deflection in the B pillar can be the result of the body bolting positions creating stress points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Didn't that teaser Explorer we saw recently have a 2.0 Eco boost engine making about 250 HP? That would work in lighter RWD Explorer. I believe it did, IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Not really ! Look that the front frame "horns" on any pickup truck ! They have "ripples" and holes so that they can collapse. The impact is passed through the frame and not into any of the body structures. Sure, if you are hit by someone with a 4X4 and a 6" lift ! IF it needs to tow 5000 LBS ! The Edge tows 4000 lbs with FWD/AWD and no frame (although I thing 3500 lbs is a more reasonable expectation) Part of the frame combined with the body structure act together as a crumple zone. As safety become more of a concern, the attention shifts more to the body. In a direct low speed crash, the bumpers line up. At higher speeds, things become airborne. What if you hit something that is not a vehicle bumper? The frame also does not protect you in a roll over. It just adds more weight pushing down on you. The current Explorer can tow upto 7,300 lbs. The F-150 can tow upto 11,000 lbs. I am sure an F-150 could tow a lot more with different engine, and transmission. Some Explorer buyers just go the mall with them. Others tow boats and wish they could afford an Expedition. They are rated up to 9,200 lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 What is the point of hampering the Explorer's capability and durability by making it a FWD unibody if the unibody weighs as much or even more?? If the goal is mileage then it's a wash. Curb weight 4436-4790 lbs (mfr) http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1...look/index.html at an estimated curb weight of 4,650 pounds http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Featu...rticleId=125899 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 What is the point of hampering the Explorer's capability and durability by making it a FWD unibody if the unibody weighs as much or even more?? If the goal is mileage then it's a wash. http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1...look/index.html http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Featu...rticleId=125899 If the Flex has 8" more rear row lag room than a Tahoe, then it must be huge compared to the Explorer. I would assume that the Flex is much safer in a crash, is quieter, and has a more ridged body. If you stretched an Escape to be 7 passanger, it would be much lighter than an Explorer. Stretch an Exporer to have the space of a Flex, beef up the body and frame to make is a quiet and solid as a Flex. You would be adding 1000 lbs. to the weight. The question remains, do you want to use the next Explorer to pull a large boat and going off road, or just going to the mall? Are you going alone, or bringing the whole family? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 The Edge tows 4000 lbs with FWD/AWD and no frame (although I thing 3500 lbs is a more reasonable expectation) The Edge can only muster to tow 3500 pounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Greene Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Sorry. Weight is the biggest contributer to the fuel economy equation. Not when cruising down the road at a light throttle on near level roads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Greene Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 (edited) Sorry. Weight is the biggest contributer to the fuel economy equation. Not when cruising down the road at a light throttle on near level roads. I'll add aero in there also, which Explorer not so good at. But sure...stop and go, weight is the biggest deal. Edited July 13, 2008 by Ralph Greene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted July 13, 2008 Author Share Posted July 13, 2008 The Explorer is not very spacious. I had the Aviator and I never had enough headroom in that car. Most of the cab sits above the frame so the vehicle looks bigger on the outside than in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Not when cruising down the road at a light throttle on near level roads. At light throttle on a level road, you burn very little fuel in an vehicle. Accelerating a heavy vehicle quickly uses huge amounts of fuel. If you want to improve your average fuel efficiency the most you have to concentrate on the quickly part and the heavy part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Even the focus on fuel economy will likely wane over a period of time. People were ultra-fuel-conscious in the mid 70's and early 80's too. Markets and vehicles changed and people forgot about it. People will still want good fuel economy, but I'm going to take a stab and guess it won't be their reason for buying a vehicle 4-5 years from now, as most vehicles should have increased fuel economy across the board. I agree. Wasn't the LTD full-size the best-selling car for 1982/1983? ('83 I think). Fleet sales notwithstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 If the Flex has 8" more rear row lag room than a Tahoe, then it must be huge compared to the Explorer. I would assume that the Flex is much safer in a crash, is quieter, and has a more ridged body. If you stretched an Escape to be 7 passanger, it would be much lighter than an Explorer. Stretch an Exporer to have the space of a Flex, beef up the body and frame to make is a quiet and solid as a Flex. You would be adding 1000 lbs. to the weight. The question remains, do you want to use the next Explorer to pull a large boat and going off road, or just going to the mall? Are you going alone, or bringing the whole family? Did ALL of you not see that "2010 Explorer" that was first shown at this years North American Auto Show??? Remember, it was uniobdy with a 2.0 EB or 3.5 EB and sliding rear doors. The interior had a vinyl looking floor and goofy seats and the grill had kind of an X shape to it. I have heard nothing about it since. Did Ford kill it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donzuchowski Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Explorer is D3. Sport-Trac is being replaced by the F-100. f100 is canceled, ford will offer a v6 f150 and even perhaps a 4cylender f-150 model as well. 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.