New Exporer might miss its target

[fordmantpw]

Yes, yes, but how often is the 3rd row of any SUV, regardless of size, used for more than children? Not very.

 

As for ditching the seats and going with smaller wheels, gee, it would be great to offer them, but I doubt many people would opt to order one that way even if given the option.

 

Agreed!

 

They could offer no 3rd row and smaller wheels for an SFE version, but you have to have brakes small enough to fit the smallest wheels, so braking may suffer some. Not worth it to the 1% that would opt for it.

[NLPRacing]

2 of those "people' had better be pretty small. There is less 3rd row seating area than the current model.

 

I know I have a "one track mind" but if you throw out the 3rd seat and back down to (gasp) 15-16" rims, it would improve the economy and performance.

 

With cars like the Fiesta coming with 17's and bigger there's no way the average consumer is going to look at an vehicle the size of the Explorer and say, "man, those 15's with the 75 series tires & whitewalls look good!".

[NickF1011]

With cars like the Fiesta coming with 17's and bigger there's no way the average consumer is going to look at an vehicle the size of the Explorer and say, "man, those 15's with the 75 series tires & whitewalls look good!".

 

Plus the pricing for larger tire sizes has come down considerably as they have become more widespread. I was hesitant to look at the Edge Sport with its 22" wheels until I found a couple different tires that were no more expensive than the 17" tires I use on my Mazda6 now.

[silvrsvt]

Plus the pricing for larger tire sizes has come down considerably as they have become more widespread. I was hesitant to look at the Edge Sport with its 22" wheels until I found a couple different tires that were no more expensive than the 17" tires I use on my Mazda6 now.

 

You can get good/decent tires for under $200 each on tirerack.com

[theoldwizard]

You can get good/decent tires for under $200 each on tirerack.com

Just bought Michelins for my Milan. $135 each "out the door".

[theoldwizard]

BTW, anyone ever heard of the statement "Form should follow function". Or as Billy Crystal sarcastically put it, "Darling, you look marvelous !"

 

Go weigh a typical 15-16" rim and tore and then compare it to a typical 17-18" rim and tire. Even a couple of pounds makes a huge difference in the ride (tire and rim are "unsprung weight" that are accelerated vertically by bumps in the road) and the addition rotating inertia makes accelerating and decelerating more difficult.

[sullynd]

BTW, anyone ever heard of the statement "Form should follow function".

 

No, but I have heard "Form ever follows function" (Sometimes quoted as "Form Follows Function") which is a quote from Louis Henri Sullivan, one of the pioneers of the "Chicago School" of Architecture. (And is considered by many to have been a mentor to Frank Lloyd Wright, who had worked in his office)

 

(And I should note that Sullivan's buildings, some of the earliest steel highrise structures, had a significant amount of ornament. People who use the quote as an argument for minimalism miss the original meaning)[/architecture graduate]

Edited November 9, 2010 by sullynd

[Bob Rosadini]

You guys sure like to act like you know everything. Different tires take different pressure. What if he no longer has factory tires on it?

 

The tires on my wife's LS take 35 PSI max. The 31x10.5R15 BF Goodrich A/Ts I just took off my 92 Explorer took 50 PSI max. I always ran them at 50 PSI. I got 65,000 miles out of those tires with no uneven wear, and got 18 mpg winter, 20 mpg summer, and 23 mpg summer highway. I've seen plenty of tires that take 44 PSI max, such as the Goodyear Wranglers I had on my explorer before the BF Goodrich, which I always kept at 44 PSI and got great life out of those as well.

 

My advice is to read the side of the tire where it says "max pressure = " and then fill them up to that pressure. Obviously that is a maximum pressure, and you can run less (to an extent) to improve ride quality, but fuel economy will take a hit with less pressure. The pressure listed on the sticker on the door jamb is only applicable to the factory tires.

for example, the wifes 04 XLT had factory Wranglers-door jam 35 PSI max.. I replaced them at 60,000 miles with a set of good Year Fonteras- Max pressure on the tire-44!

[V8-X]

Nope. That is a flawed argument because tire pressure and vehicle speed are not analagous (if they were, a flat tire would be safer than an inflated tire, just as a stopped car is safer than a moving car) Your reasoning is that I should only inflate my 50 PSI tire to 30 PSI. I have an experiment for us: I'll run my 50 PSI tire at 48-50 PSI, and you run the same tire at 30 PSI. Wanna bet which one of us has tire problems?

 

We already established that a tire should be inflated as close to the max as possible while still leaving necessary margin for tire heat up and vehicle loading. The manufacturer stickers state as much. Ever notice how the pressure listed on those stickers is almost always about 5 PSI less than the "max pressure" on the factory tires?

Exactly! Have a 2006 F150 Screw 4x4 that the door jam calls for 35psi max, which was run on the stock BFG Rugged Terrain 275/65-R18's and did fine for a P series tire.

 

Now I have 275/70-R18 BFG All-Terrain A/T KO's (LT tire). Max is 70PSI cold. I run them between 55-60psi. Little rougher ride, but if you run them any lower than 45-50psi, you'll get exaggerated uneven tread wear, added drag from the tires and your tires won't last nearly as long. Which these tires have a 50K mile warranty.

 

With cars like the Fiesta coming with 17's and bigger there's no way the average consumer is going to look at an vehicle the size of the Explorer and say, "man, those 15's with the 75 series tires & whitewalls look good!".

Personally, give me a smaller rim and bigger tire, especially on trucks! Everybody just wants the bling bling look and style now. I want functionality and capability.

Edited November 10, 2010 by V8-X

[scode1]

They updated the order guide saying 2.0 EB not available for 2011 my.

[Moosetang]

Was at a car show today and the model up on the turntable giving her speech about the new Explorer had a big crowd. She was attractive, but so were the GM models and they were nearly talking to themselves.

[T'Cal]

Yes, yes, but how often is the 3rd row of any SUV, regardless of size, used for more than children? Not very.

 

As for ditching the seats and going with smaller wheels, gee, it would be great to offer them, but I doubt many people would opt to order one that way even if given the option.

 

I have four teens so the third row of my vehicle is used A LOT! The Freestyle/Taurus X had plenty of third row room for average sized adults so I'm expecting the Explorer to meet ot beat them since the roof is taller. I felt comfortable in the back of those cars but claustrophobic in the lambda CUVs. The GMs have high window sills and tall seatbacks making me feel closed in in the middle and back rows of those vehicles. There is plenty of room and glass area in the Flex and Freestyle/Taurus X. Not so much in the MKT - horrible in the third row, in fact. And not much cargo space. If I had to buy a people-mover today, it would be the Flex. If I could hold off a bit, it would likely be the Explorer.

[jpd80]

I also heard that turbo lag on the Explorer 2.0L EcoBoost is "noticeable", especially at altitude.

The impression I heard from an engineer was not very favorable either.

 

Once you get over 4,000 lbs with a 2.0 Ecoboost engine, you're really pushing the limits, will customers be disappointed?

While a 2.2 turbo diesel could easily handle the AWD Explorer and towing at the same time, there's still the NOX problem.

It will be interesting to see if customers just buy the 3.5 as FWD or AWD and mostly skip the Ecoboost completely,

If Ford is right, most customers will find that the 3.5 does everything they want, maybe an Ecoboost 3.5 in time?

Edited November 28, 2010 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

Once you get over 4,000 lbs with a 2.0 Ecoboost engine, you're really pushing the limits, will customers be disappointed?

While a 2.2 turbo diesel could easily handle the AWD Explorer and towing at the same time, there's still the NOX problem.

 

Engineers know how to solve that problem. Management is stuck on EcoBoost technology.

 

It will be interesting to see if customers just buy the 3.5 as FWD or AWD and mostly skip the Ecoboost completely,

 

You can bet on that, especially when they see how much extra it costs !

 

If Ford is right, most customers will find that the 3.5 does everything they want, maybe an Ecoboost 3.5 in time?

 

I'll bet the 2.0L EcoBoost is dropped for 2012MY. I also expect the 3.7L to become the base engine and the 3.5L EcoBoost the only other option.

 

Of course all bets are off if gasoline hits $4/gallon next summer !

Edited November 28, 2010 by theoldwizard

[ds91776]

No. The 2.0 EcoBoost will not be dropped any time soon. Ford has invested too much marketing/media/journalist effort into this program. Hyundai is going full force into using turbo 4s in crossovers so there is no reason why Ford can't make it work either. Remember, this thing will have a very flat torque curve. I'll bet this Explorer ( with the 2.0 EcoBoost ) will be easier to drive than any Explorer V6 produced before the 2011 model.

[Moosetang]

Engineers know how to solve that problem. Management is stuck on EcoBoost technology.

 

Care to share?

[jpd80]

Care to share?

Ecoboost was originally a strategy proposed by Ford Europe to improve the fuel economy and CO2 levels of petrol engines sold there, the economy improvements measured of European test cycle was 20% compared to existing naturally aspireated engines.

 

 

 

About this time the Ford NA were having troubles meeting the incoming diesel NOX regulations and were seeking a remedy that would give them increased performance and fuel economy without the expense of diesels and their NOX strategies.

 

 

 

DerricK Kuzak picked up ecoboost and sold it to the US executives convincing them that a 20% fuel economy improvement seemed likely but all of this was done without the Ford NA power train division given the chance to verify the claims. By the time they told management that a lot of work was needed to honour 20% fule economy improvement claims, the advertising people were already touting to the buying public at the NAIAS so Ford could hardly withdraw the claim that Explorer Americana 2.0 I-4 EB would give up to 30% better fuel economy than the existing 4.0 V6.

 

 

[Deanh]

Engineers know how to solve that problem. Management is stuck on EcoBoost technology.

 

 

 

You can bet on that, especially when they see how much extra it costs !

 

 

 

I'll bet the 2.0L EcoBoost is dropped for 2012MY. I also expect the 3.7L to become the base engine and the 3.5L EcoBoost the only other option.

 

Of course all bets are off if gasoline hits $4/gallon next summer !

just tried to spec out an ecoboost to see the upcharge for the 2.0...there apparently is none.

[2b2]

...I'll bet the 2.0L EcoBoost is dropped for 2012MY. I also expect the 3.7L to become the base engine and the 3.5L EcoBoost the only other option.

Of course all bets are off if gasoline hits $4/gallon next summer !

No. The 2.0 EcoBoost will not be dropped any time soon. Ford has invested too much marketing/media/journalist effort into this program. Hyundai is going full force into using turbo 4s in crossovers so there is no reason why Ford can't make it work either. Remember, this thing will have a very flat torque curve. I'll bet this Explorer ( with the 2.0 EcoBoost ) will be easier to drive than any Explorer V6 produced before the 2011 model.

remember the merged Mondeo+Fusion+Taurus+??? platform, which is only a couple years away, could create a whole new situation

 

possibly-also, the "new Lincoln v6" (2.7?) ... which I sincerely doubt FoMoCo will keep Lincoln-exclusive

[Moosetang]

Ecoboost was originally a strategy proposed by Ford Europe to improve the fuel economy and CO2 levels of petrol engines sold there, the economy improvements measured of European test cycle was 20% compared to existing naturally aspireated engines.

 

 

 

About this time the Ford NA were having troubles meeting the incoming diesel NOX regulations and were seeking a remedy that would give them increased performance and fuel economy without the expense of diesels and their NOX strategies.

 

 

 

DerricK Kuzak picked up ecoboost and sold it to the US executives convincing them that a 20% fuel economy improvement seemed likely but all of this was done without the Ford NA power train division given the chance to verify the claims. By the time they told management that a lot of work was needed to honour 20% fule economy improvement claims, the advertising people were already touting to the buying public at the NAIAS so Ford could hardly withdraw the claim that Explorer Americana 2.0 I-4 EB would give up to 30% better fuel economy than the existing 4.0 V6.

Thanks, but that wasn't the part of theoldwizard's post I was referring to.

[silvrsvt]

One point I think everyone is missing here is that the D3/4 is larger then the out going Explorer platform. I know for a fact that an 02 Explorer is slightly smaller then a 08 Sable...my parents replaced their Explorer with a Sable, and they can barely fit the Sable in the garage in their place (which was built in 2002/3) where as the Explorer fit in the same spot just right. I know the 06 Explorer was slightly changed, but I don't know how much it grew. So having a '12 Explorer weigh less (and being bigger then the outgoing model) is a good thing, though you would think that a unibody would weigh another 100lb or less then a frame truck.

[Sevensecondsuv]

though you would think that a unibody would weigh another 100lb or less then a frame truck.

 

That's just it though. Look at all the unibody large CUVs on the market nowadays. They all weigh about the same as their truck-frame sporting SUV counterparts. I think it basically comes down to the fact that it takes a certain amount of steel to properly underpin a given size CUV or SUV. Whether it's a frame or unibody doesn't seem to matter much when it comes to final curb weight.

 

I think the biggest advantage to unibody construction is that assembly time and cost are lower with a unibody. This is for two reasons:

1) The body doesn't have to be bolted onto the frame

2) Framed vehicles don't accommodate a FWD powertrain, which is another big time/cost saver during assembly.

 

Then there's also the fact that Ford already had the D3/D4 platform available, and that was a heck of lot cheaper than design a new RWD/BOF setup.

 

I'm fine with what they did to the Explorer. I just hope they don't leave the small part of the market that wants/needs RWD and a frame out in the cold.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[jpd80]

Thanks, but that wasn't the part of theoldwizard's post I was referring to.

Ah, he was referring to my post:

While a 2.2 turbo diesel could easily handle the AWD Explorer and towing at the same time' date=' [b']there's still the NOX problem.[/b]

 

Engineers know how to solve that problem. Management is stuck on EcoBoost technology.

 

The solution to diesel NOX emissions is known, they just can't get the costs down enough

to make the price of a diesel engine option viable in the USA.

Edited December 5, 2010 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

The solution to diesel NOX emissions is known, they just can't get the costs down enough

to make the price of a diesel engine option viable in the USA.

I don't think it is strictly a cost issue.

 

First, Ford management wants the buying public ti embrace EcoBoost technology. If diesel was offered as an option it would "confuse" the buyers.

 

Second, the marketing department won't let upper management forget about the Cadillac diesel debacle. This, of course, feeds into #1.

 

Third, unlike parts of EU, diesel fuel is actually taxed at a higher rate in the US. Plus, the oil companies have (IMHO) created a limited supply situation that results in diesel fuel costing MORE than gasoline in most parts of the US. Most petroleum engineers would tell you that ULSD should have a retail price lower than regular gasoline.

 

VW and Mercedes are selling diesel cars in the US. Ford uses the same supplier (Bosch) that they do, so Ford has access to the same technology.

[jpd80]

I don't think it is strictly a cost issue.

 

First, Ford management wants the buying public ti embrace EcoBoost technology. If diesel was offered as an option it would "confuse" the buyers.

 

Second, the marketing department won't let upper management forget about the Cadillac diesel debacle. This, of course, feeds into #1.

 

Third, unlike parts of EU, diesel fuel is actually taxed at a higher rate in the US. Plus, the oil companies have (IMHO) created a limited supply situation that results in diesel fuel costing MORE than gasoline in most parts of the US. Most petroleum engineers would tell you that ULSD should have a retail price lower than regular gasoline.

 

VW and Mercedes are selling diesel cars in the US. Ford uses the same supplier (Bosch) that they do, so Ford has access to the same technology.

UK fuel prices are almost three times the price that US consumers pay, that is a compelling argument

for diesel in Europe and conversely, why it has very little chance of gaining a foot hold in low tax USA.