chromehorn Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 What's up with the mirrors? Looks like they are just kind of hanging on there. I suppose their is some sort of unique mirror they are putting on it...didn't want to give away any other clues? I know it seems strange to point that the mirrors look goofy, obviously not production units, but the other day I was looking at an '10 sho and '10 mustang when I realized they had virtually identical mirrors on them. Maybe the production units will have integrated turn signal indicators in them (kind of like the Acadia) for the benefit of those driving on the flanks? The current model doesn't have those, does it? I don't think many Fords (save for maybe some trucks) have ever had those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 The design is meant to carry that blackened door frame detail. You'll see. Do you think the black out will be used on all pillars, or just the C pillar? hope RMC & EdStock don't mind: clickable imho the black A-pillars will be part of a 2-tone pkg ONLY & imho the roof is unique & quite attractive - kind of a sloping raised look & anyone else think the headlights we saw before were phoney/temporary ones? new: previous: from Nov 21 video thread elsewhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I wonder: If the Taurus SHO/MKS already have the 3.5L non-EB and EB, and the regular Taurus has the 3.5L non-EB... ...and this link says 4-cyl EB and 3.5L non-EB... ...wouldn't it be safe to say that the 3 engines could all then be used on anything running down the line at CAP? So in 2011, will we be able to get a Taurus with a 4-cyl EB? Or, an Explorer with 3.5L EB? It would seem very doable..... Chuck A Ford employee who I will not mention his username said that the Explorer will be the first with an only EB engine lineup so dont expect to see the normal 3.5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Supposedly the Egoboost I4, was first penned at 280HP, I do not see the reasoning towards using the 3.5L that will probably be making less. Unless they provide a 250HP version of the Egoboost I4. As for the 3.5L, they might as well start phasing in the 3.7L and give it at least 300HP. I understand the vehicle will weigh less, but personally anything over 4000lbs needs at least 300HP. The last figures I've seen for a EB I4 is only around 245 HP...the same as the 3L V6...but I also think that number is being under rated. I'm sure it will have some crazy torque numbers with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Supposedly the Egoboost I4, was first penned at 280HP, I do not see the reasoning towards using the 3.5L that will probably be making less. Unless they provide a 250HP version of the Egoboost I4. As for the 3.5L, they might as well start phasing in the 3.7L and give it at least 300HP. I understand the vehicle will weigh less, but personally anything over 4000lbs needs at least 300HP. How many times do you have to repeat a cliche before you start rolling your eyes at yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucky2 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 A Ford employee who I will not mention his username said that the Explorer will be the first with an only EB engine lineup so dont expect to see the normal 3.5. That really makes me wonder then, if they'll drop the NA 3.5L V-6 and just go I-4 EB and 3.5L V-6 EB at CAP. For the lighter on the gas drivers in a Taurus, the I-4 EB ought to give pretty good mpg in both city and highway. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 So mechanically this is basically a restyled Flex? I know this has been beaten to death but at what point can we officially say that Ford has the SUV/CUV segments covered? Oh wait, we haven't seen the one based on the Fiesta platform yet. Good grief. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 why, my bet is it will trump the current explorer in pretty much EVERY facet Except for those that make it an off road capable SUV. Which is why they should change the name. Calling a FWD unibody station wagon an Explorer makes about as much sense as calling a FWD BOF truck a Mustang (Does one exist?). I just see it now, the 2013 Mazda Miata, Mazda's response to the Honda Ridgeline!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 So mechanically this is basically a restyled Flex? I know this has been beaten to death but at what point can we officially say that Ford has the SUV/CUV segments covered? Oh wait, we haven't seen the one based on the Fiesta platform yet. Good grief. :rolleyes: It's getting a little much, they should have just given the current Explorer a total re-design and added the ecoboost engines, a Flex weighs as much as an Explorer, so I don't see how a vehicle built on the same chassis that is virtually the same size is going to weigh any less? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) hey guys can I get some of what your smoking? In no shape or form does it look like a Flex green house, the B-pillars are too thick, the Flex has black wrap around look to it, while this will be an updated/modernized SUV green house thats found on the Current Explorer and Escape. The grill looks to be influenced by the '10 Taurus Electric Razor blade look... I don't really see Flex in there either. ----- I'm still gonna stand pretty close to my "removed camo" chop: Here's the colored version (although the d-pillar should be blacked out - someone else here colored it for me). -- I'll work on an updated chop, including: -blacked out a-pillar -losing the c-pillar window kink -black plastic around the bottom -different grille based on new photos -more blended wheel arches Edited December 8, 2009 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) Actually, looking more closely now, I will agree that the A-pillar will be blacked out. I do believe that the C-pillar will be body colored, though. I'm also leaning toward believing that more than one grille may be available - certain models appear to have grilles like the one I put in the chop above, while others appear to have different grilles.... Edited December 8, 2009 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 ...Oh wait, we haven't seen the one based on the Fiesta platform yet. Good grief. :rolleyes: here ya go: The B-Max < click Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 here ya go: The B-Max < click I was hoping for something a bit more masculine - skewed more toward EcoSport/Escape rather than toward Fiesta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 ^ it's only a rendering of the euro version ours (if we get it) could be tweaked for a tougher look Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 So thats Focus B-Max? Not to be confused with Grand C-Max. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 ^ it's only a rendering of the euro versionours (if we get it) could be tweaked for a tougher look Sorry, but that thing would require a new body to have a "tougher" look, IMO. Kinetic =/= tough in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reigner92 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 What i see I REALLY like!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Except for those that make it an off road capable SUV. Because that's what made the Explorer popular, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) I thought the whole reason Ford was switching Explorer to unitary body was because most Explorer buyers don't go off roading to the degree of needing a BOF SUV, the need isn't there anymore. Ford will direct those wanting a genuine off road capable BOF SUV towards the Expedition. Edited December 8, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) It's not that it's unibody, it's that it's FWD, they are turning the Explorer into a station wagon, they should really re-name it. Exactly. The Jeep Cherokee XJ was one of the most respected off-road capable SUVs ever and it had a ladder box chassis integrated into it's unibody. The next Explorer will just be a front wheel drive station wagon and it should be renamed. Maybe Explorer II (as in Mustang II) when Ford pulled all performance out of that vehicle. Edited December 8, 2009 by F250 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I do not understand the obsession with off roading and the Explorer. Seriously, how many of these $35k and up things are actually used for serious off road work. Sure, the Explorer has always been off road capable, and a unibody design can be made just as off road capable, but it is the styling and image that will trump all of that. The market demographic for the Explorer is not the hard core off roader, and it never has been. Think middle class suburbanites who want to look adventurous. Hey, I used to drive a Pinto in more rigorous situations than 99.5% of all Explorers ever are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I do not understand the obsession with off roading and the Explorer. Exactly, the vast majority of Explorers never left the pavement. It just looked "tough" and the right balance of creature comforts and practicality that made it a smash hit in the 1990s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 There's no reason the Explorer should be BOF. The Explorer has always been a terrible off-roader and most peole buy the V6 which can't tow worth the damn anyway. Not to mention the BOF makes for a heavier, cramped, and less fuel-effecient package (brilliant for a family hauler in this economy). BOF does not = Explorer. Get over it guys, if you want a BOF Explorer, got get an Expy. Besides, have you noticed how bad the Explorer is selling? What exactly do we want to preserve here? Ford is not a charity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Besides, have you noticed how bad the Explorer is selling? What exactly do we want to preserve here? Ford is not a charity. And there is the winning answer. If it was still selling worth a crap, they probably would have kept the RWD/BOF configuration. But, as it is selling now, that's simply a money-losing proposition. Share a platform or cancel it were probably the only two choices, and well, there's too much value in the Explorer brand to cancel it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Except for those that make it an off road capable SUV. Which is why they should change the name. +1 Because that's what made the Explorer popular, right? Well around these parts (CO), the Gen I & II Explorer's were used quite a bit for off-roading. You can still see quite a few on the trails and back roads today. When the Gen III Explorer was released in '02 with the IRS, most people in these parts, who used the Explorer for off-road purposes, moved away from it. The Gen I was more capable than the Gen II with its TTB than the IFS. Of course most people I know opted for the manual locking hubs, or replaced the electronic locking hubs for manuals. I thought the whole reason Ford was switching Explorer to unitary body was because most Explorer buyers don't go off roading to the degree of needing a BOF SUV, the need isn't there anymore. Ford will direct those wanting a genuine off road capable BOF SUV towards the Expedition. I understand this point, and financially is most likely the best route. But then again to me this is not what an Explorer is or should be and why I agree with Blueblood on this getting a name change. 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.