MT test's the Ford Explorer against the Competition

[FordBuyer]

will say this though, the ride errs on the firm side, but it is well damped and theres NO bump thump.....and compared with the BMWs they so worship the word "firmness" gets re-evaluated....

 

I'm old enough to remember when MT was basically a domestic vehicle reviewer and R&T was where you went if you wanted to see road handling macnines reviewed, and mostly German at that. Now it looks like MT is trying to be an enthusiasts magazine and horn in on R&T audience. With something like 55% of market now foreign, and much more of the advertising money coming from them, maybe they think they now have to cater to the import audience and what they want to hear. About the only vehicle MT likes seems to be the Mustang anymore. So now we have three American auto mags catering to enthsiast crowd and biased towards the foreign makes. However, the ultimate review is sales, and Ford is doing excellent there, and that's all that matters. Sales and market share. I don't think the buying public is listening to these mags if you look at sales.

[Deanh]

I'm old enough to remember when MT was basically a domestic vehicle reviewer and R&T was where you went if you wanted to see road handling macnines reviewed, and mostly German at that. Now it looks like MT is trying to be an enthusiasts magazine and horn in on R&T audience. With something like 55% of market now foreign, and much more of the advertising money coming from them, maybe they think they now have to cater to the import audience and what they want to hear. About the only vehicle MT likes seems to be the Mustang anymore. So now we have three American auto mags catering to enthsiast crowd and biased towards the foreign makes. However, the ultimate review is sales, and Ford is doing excellent there, and that's all that matters. Sales and market share. I don't think the buying public is listening to these mags if you look at sales.

I think most auto mags lose the plot, they listen only to their own desires and wants/ needs.....thank god Ford listens to the customers needs...I think sales will reflect that...however, no vehicle, and that INCLUDES BMWS and their godawful ergos MT, are you listening?....is perfect, and I think the mags may help in rectifying potential issues by bringing them to the manufacturers attention...

[twintornados]

Just cancelled my subscriptions to all car rags, including Motor Trend....this is why.

[Extreme4x4]

MT needs to stop replying.................... they just keep digging their hole deeper.

 

They bitch and complain about the Explorer being FWD and built off of the Taurus platform. They fail to mention that their beloved CX-9 is also a FWD vehicle, and is built on a Mazda global FWD platform. The Pilot is built on the Accord platform, and is also FWD.................... as is everything else, short of the Durango.

 

Why don't they just state the only thing they are not saying. Basically: "FORD CHANGED THE EXPLORER FROM RWD TO FWD AND WE ARE PISSED !!! PISSED WE TELL YOU, AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO STAND FOR IT. SO, FORD SUCKS, AND FORD FWD SUCKS." So there !!!

 

Instead, they keep coming up with excuses to why their article and responses don't suck. Real mature, guys.

[stpatrick90]

So after this whole article showdown and such I decided to go out and test some of these vehicles. I am currently interested in purchasing an Explorer and luckily was able to track one down at a local Ford dealership (only found one), it was a XLT 4WD with MyFord and the panoramic roof. The dealership said that they had other people interested and were slightly apprehensive about letting me test drive it but I was able to convince them. So I have already had some brief seat time in a new Explorer and new what to sort of what to expect. Things I noticed, it has a great ride (over the broken pavement around here it tracked straight and true with little in the way of uncomfortable-ness noticed) and on quick back road jaunt it proved to be a competent handler for such a behemoth. Another thing I noticed was how quiet it was, I wasn't expecting it to be as quiet as it was. As to be expected the build quality was impressive with no noticeable issues (I even banged on trim pieces slightly to see their strength/sturdiness and found nothing to be concerned with). MyFord Touch worked perfect for all basic functions such as radio and climate (I find myself preferring the XLT's MyFord interface more than the Limited's Sony My Ford interface). As a whole I was immensely impressed with this automobile.

I went across the street to the GM dealership (this particular dealer houses all four GM brands). I looked over the new Regal and have to say that it is an attractive car (didn't test drive it though). Anyways back to point, I wondered the lot and so happened upon a used CX9 AWD in the used lot (2007 with 78,000 miles on the clock and what I would assume is the basic model). Took it out on a short jaunt and can confirm that it definitely is a great handler for such a large car. It was definitely slower than the Explorer (this CX9 was the pre 3.7L V6 model year so it had the 3.5L), that isn't to say that it was slow or anything just not as quick. The ride was noticeably busier, not going to break your back kind of ride or anything but certainly not what you would want in what is essentially a family hauler. It was also noticeably noisier, especially under acceleration and even at HWY speed. Build quality wasn't as good as the Explorer but it is older/used so I will reserve final judgement of its quality till I see a new example.

After the CX9 I was able to test a new Acadia (sales person seemed to be under the impression that the Acadia was built on a different platform than the Traverse....obviously wrong but I let him believe so). The Acadia was a midlevel (SLT I think?) and only FWD. Let me just first say that the biggest thing that sticks out in my mind is that there is a ton of seams in the interior on the dash and the dash is made of much harder materials than the Explorer (didn't feel anywhere near the niceness of the Explorer). I would almost venture to say that the materials were the same if not worse than the CX9's. The Acadia was definitely much roomier inside though than the other two (especially more noticeable in the second and third rows). I do have to say that they do have a great idea for folding the second row seats to get into the third row but the passenger side was noticeably more difficult to maneuver than the driver side (to the point that I would say that a small child wouldn't be able to operate it on their own). Driving reminded me way too much of a minivan, and I don't mean that in a good way. It reminded me of an old Pontiac Montana that I drove once, granted that is a slightly harsh comparison as the Acadia did have better ride control over bumps (it rode a bit smoother than the Explorer and noticeably better than the CX9) but felt discernibly disconnected in the corners. I didn't experience any truly discerning torque steer despite being FWD (I mean torque steer was present but it was akin to what a Duratec 3.0L Taurus/Sable produced so not a real concern at all). I do have to say that I would never buy any of these big behemoths in FWD because when you go WOT from a stop and the weight shifts of the front tires it causes traction control to freak out for a bit before you get going.

 

As a whole I am surprised that the Traverse even placed ahead of anything, it makes a great minivan but I in no way view that as a positive comment. I see merit in the CX9 being at the top as it certainly did feel the sportiest of the bunch and I can only imagine the 3.7L would improve things. Of the three I tested though I would personally pick the Explorer. I haven't driven the new Durango but have sat in one and can say that I am impressed with its build quality and interior accommodations (and bear in mind I find most Chrysler products repulsing). If I were to do a full review of the same vehicles MT used I can see the top three being a near dead heat between the Explorer, Durango and CX9. I set out to only compare the Explorer to the Traverse and instead ended up encountering a CX9 by chance and testing a Acadia instead of Traverse.

[rmc523]

Well since 95% of Explorer buyers don't tow....I don't see what the problem is..and its been stated that the EB I4 isn't going to cost any extra on either the Explorer and Edge. Also where are you getting 290HP? The 3.5L is rated for 285 in the Explorer and the EB I4 is going to be rated around 250-260 :rolleyes:

 

The new Explorer DOES have 290-hp (stated in the brochure).

 

You sure did, but it doesn't change the fact that MT found the Explorer not to be up to the competition.

 

Ford gave them this Explorer in Feb 2011. So that Explorer had to be very near a production ready model. It's not like it was one of the first pre-production units to roll off the assembly line.

 

Keep letting your bias show. I'm as big a blue oval fan as any, but I'm willing to accept that it was Fords fault alone that they provided a pre-production unit that didn't live up to the hype.

 

As I've stated before in this thread, most of their issues with the vehicle can be directly associated to it's pre-production status. They seemed to like everything else about it (see my earlier post, as I'm too lazy to find and rehash my earlier more detailed argument).

 

If they want to rate it last because of the faults they found on it (that are again directly associated with its pre-production status), I'm ok with that if they clearly state something along the lines of "because of issue X, Y, and Z on this pre-production example/unit, we cannot at this time rate the Explorer higher than its competitors, but its finishing position could be re-evaluated pending a full/updated review of a regular production example, where many of the stated issues have (hopefully) been resolved."

 

Had they said that, while most of us still would not have liked where the Explorer finished, we (and the magazine's readers) would all clearly understand WHY it finished last and/or their reasoning behind it finishing last and not have argued with their approach. But the fact that they then came out and said "oh no matter what changes were made from the pre-production state to the full production state," the Explorer STILL would've finished last without even retesting the vehicle is (I think) the issue most of us have with this review, NOT necessarily the review itself.

-----

 

Bottom line: We don’t care what badge a vehicle carries. We don’t care where it’s made, what the sales numbers are, or what other automotive media outlets might think. We want every car, truck, and SUV to be great, and we’re disappointed when they’re not. The V-6 powered Ford Explorer Limited is, in our considered and professional opinion, a disappointment because we already determined it would finish last because of its' switch from RWD to FWD.

 

Even though the Explorer we already tested had all these attributes that were in most cases better than the competition, We’re expecting great things from the forthcoming four-cylinder EcoBoost-powered Explorer: Terrific fuel economy, and a better ride/handling compromise would definitely make it a more compelling offering in the family SUV market, and I would like nothing better than for Ford to deliver on that promise. But if it doesn’t, we’ll be the first to let you know.

 

I fixed their last two paragraphs in that latest response for them.

[GT-Keith]

I updated the OP @ the end. It seems like MT published the article to just create controversy...

[theDuff]

I drove one yesterday to listen for a noise that wasn't there :rolleyes:

 

The torque steer is there. Most noticeable from a stop and 3/4 to full throttle. Really though, you have to really pay attention. Its not like a ZX2 or anything. I didn't really have to fight it. I acually had to let go of the wheel to really notice it pulling. (It pulls right) This vehicle had awd.

 

There is no way, in my opinion, that this vehicle should take dead last in any comparo. It is gorgious inside and out. The only nvh I was able to detect was wind noise at 80 mph. (It was very windy yesterday)

 

The guy who works in the next stall over is 6' 6". He was able to position himself in the second row, then move to the third row and still be comfortable. I asked him if he could ride to Chicago in that third row (about a three hour drive). He said no problem. His head wasn't touching the headliner (about and inch or two left). He didn't have both knees on one side of the seatback in front of him. So two 6 and a half foot people could sit one in front of the other in the back two rows! I would be shocked if you could do this in the other five vehicles tested. I don't think you can do that in an Expedition! I'll check tomorrow.

 

I really could go on and on ... the switchgear, the interior materials, fit and finish, how much better mft is now (I did every update at work for 10B20), the "gotta have it" factor ... but I'm sure everyone understands.

[GT-Keith]

Updated the OP again with another blog post by Editor in Chief Angus McKenzie.

 

I’m not surprised you’ve read a number of fairly positive reviews. Many of those would have been based on early drives at either a Ford Proving Ground, or from the initial launch drive. In both cases wheel time would have been reasonably limited, and the route – had the Ford PRs been doing their job – would have been selected to show the vehicle at its best.

As for the NATOTY, all I know about this is it’s an award based on the votes of a jury of journalists rather than an award based on a clearly documented process of testing and evaluating a vehicle against a set of published criteria. From the timing of the award, it’s fairly safe to say many of the jurors would have had fairly limited time with the Explorer.

When you get more time in a vehicle on roads you know well – and put it through a series of standardised tests – first impressions can change. Throwing a vehicle into a comparison test alters the dynamic further. Stuff that may not have been obvious in isolation can suddenly become the stuff that makes the difference between winning and losing.

[RichardJensen]

Wow.

 

This guy just doesn't get it, does he?

 

Let's take Autoblog's review of the Explorer

 

Check out the date:

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/11/2011-ford-explorer-limited-review-road-test/

 

That's six months after launch, and was not under the aegis, purview, supervision, or control of Ford.

 

It was also in the middle of February in Michigan. I'm pretty sure that whatever 'issues' showed up in sunny southern California would've shown up--even more so--in the peninsula state. In February.

 

What's more: MT absolutely dismissed the stellar performance of the Explorer in their standardized tests, so it's thoroughly irresponsible to assert that standardized testing makes a difference when you've deliberately, decidedly, and joyously thumbed your nose at your own standardized test regimen.

[RichardJensen]

Oh, snap, Angus, it's ANOTHER review of the Explorer that *did not* involve Ford PR minders:

 

http://www.insideline.com/ford/explorer/2011/2011-ford-explorer-limited-4wd-full-test.html

Edited April 10, 2011 by RichardJensen

[Extreme4x4]

I've been reading actual buyers reviews..................... and potential buyers reviews. Its funny, but not one thing that MT complained about, have the potential or actual owners witnessed or dealt with.

 

Some have specifically reviewed all of the vehicles that MT did, in their purchasing decision process, also.

 

Owners have found the fit and finish to be excellent. Compared to other vehicles in its class, the ride, while on the firmer side, is very controlled, comfortable, and eliminates road harshness. The vehicle is whisper quiet, usually more so than any other vehicle they have ever driven. The materials are excellent, and nobody is noticing any torque steer.

 

However, they have to all be wrong, just as all other publications are wrong. Only MT is right.......................... and would still be right, even if they did retest a production version........................ which they won't do, because maybe they would find out they are wrong...................... but they are not wrong, because they are MT, and only they are right. :rolleyes:

[Moosetang]

The fact that they've had to respond multiple times now only reinforces how much of a screw-up this was. These guys don't go to this sort of length unless they're worried. Unfortunately, it appears they're more worried about their image than their results.

 

Taking pot-shots at blogs is, well, stupid. Johnny Lieberman, whose article is the subject of the furor, used to work for Autoblog. Less than a year ago in fact. That's a politics-dumb move.

 

But I'm particularly galled by the posts where they seem to be rooting for the sales number to falter after their comparison tests. CONSUMERS decide which cars to buy, Angus. You can advise them, warn them, poke and prod them. But in the end it is not your decision to make. If you can't take that, pack up your hair and get out of the bid'ness.

[GT-Keith]

 

 

What's more: MT absolutely dismissed the stellar performance of the Explorer in their standardized tests, so it's thoroughly irresponsible to assert that standardized testing makes a difference when you've deliberately, decidedly, and joyously thumbed your nose at your own standardized test regimen.

 

Good point. Their responses to scrutiny was deemed damage control the moment they made their first blog. They had to explain their justification on multiple accounts which does nothing for whatever credulity they had.

 

The MT forum apologetic is just an incongruous as the editors themselves. The point is that we don't have a problem with were it ranked any more than we have problem with their justification, back-tracking, and over all inconsistency in their self-refuting assessment of the Explorer.

 

I'm glad I let my subscription run it's coarse.

 

The fact that they've had to respond multiple times now only reinforces how much of a screw-up this was. These guys don't go to this sort of length unless they're worried. Unfortunately, it appears they're more worried about their image than their results.

 

Taking pot-shots at blogs is, well, stupid. Johnny Lieberman, whose article is the subject of the furor, used to work for Autoblog. Less than a year ago in fact. That's a politics-dumb move.

 

But I'm particularly galled by the posts where they seem to be rooting for the sales number to falter after their comparison tests. CONSUMERS decide which cars to buy, Angus. You can advise them, warn them, poke and prod them. But in the end it is not your decision to make. If you can't take that, pack up your hair and get out of the bid'ness.

 

My thoughts exactly... It's just damage control.

[Jvrad3]

I was very surprised when I read the MT article. I had the chance to test drive a new Explorer, and I was impressed with the minimal amount of torque steer, especially when compared to my parents' new Highlander. I have learned to take all magazine opinions with a grain of salt.

[RichardJensen]

Here's the official Motor Trend sized grain of salt:

 

[Deanh]

Here's the official Motor Trend sized grain of salt:

 

Kosher?

[RichardJensen]

I don't know many Jewish cattle.

[akirby]

I don't know many Jewish cattle.

 

My wife mentioned something in the car about a priest taking tips. I said that priests don't take tips, but Rabbis do.

 

She didn't get it. I hate explaining jokes........

[RichardJensen]

She didn't get it.

Ignorance is briss.

[akirby]

Ignorance is briss.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Ignorance is briss.

 

 

Punny, very punny.

 

The Jewish standoff reminds me of two of my long gone uncles arguing about whether the lox was better at Weinstein's or Adler's. Neither would give any ground. Sadly, neither place is still in business.

 

On the other hand, there's an old saying that when two Jews argue, you have four opinions.

[Deanh]

brilliant last few comments.....love it