Explorer VS Durango commercial

[jpd80]

We're going to see a lot of this disaffected previous buyer stuff with the three BOF vehicles ending in close succession,

Explorer, Panther and Ranger all have significant following and yes, there will be people yearning for those strong,

rugged vehicles to remain but unfortunately time and buyers have moved on for these vehicles.

 

While it's true that replacements for Panther, Explorer and Ranger don't do everything those vehicles do,

the replacement vehicles do 80-90% of what existing buyers want but more importantly get even better gas

mileage and have new technology and better crash safety built in. Ford is following the market and their

research is telling them that this is what the majority of buyers want. Yes there are still people who want

rugged vehicles and more off road emphasis, we get that. So if Ford isn't making the vehicle you want,

then buy one that does form another company. Ford is not concerned about that amount of sales leakage

because the majority of buyers and market trends are going in the other direction....

Edited August 17, 2011 by jpd80

[NickF1011]

We're going to see a lot of this disaffected previous buyer stuff with the three BOF vehicles ending in close succession,

Explorer, Panther and Ranger all have significant following and yes, there will be people yearning for those strong,

rugged vehicles to remain but unfortunately time and buyers have moved on for these vehicles.

 

While it's true that replacements for Panther, Explorer and Ranger don't do everything those vehicles do,

the replacement vehicles do 80-90% of what existing buyers want but more importantly get even better gas

mileage and have new technology and better crash safety built in. Ford is following the market and their

research is telling them that this is what the majority of buyers want. Yes there are still people who want

rugged vehicles and more off road emphasis, we get that. So if Ford isn't making the vehicle you want,

then buy one that does form another company. Ford is not concerned about that amount of sales leakage

because the majority of buyers and market trends are going in the other direction....

 

Do we need to continue this thread? I think that sums it up perfectly.

[V8-X]

Which seems to be the reason you are knocking the Explorer. Pot, meet kettle!

 

So you could give us a % of the population that WANTS/NEEDS this extra range of the Durango? How many WANT/NEED the capabilities of the Durango/JGC? Apparently everyone in CO does, so that leaves 49 other states that don't need that capability.

 

The point we are trying to make is that the Explorer fits the needs of MOST of the SUV/CUV-buying public. It's a FACT! It doesn't meet yours. Great, we get it. By something that does. We don't care what you drive. Just buy what fits your needs and quit bit&hing that the Explorer doesn't. Ford has to make a profit, and the best way to do that is to build a vehicle that meets the needs of the masses, not the few. The Explorer may not be the best SUV/CUV FOR YOUR NEEDS, but it likely is for quite a few of the SUV/CUV buyers, and judging by sales so far, that appears to be true.

Well, me knocking a vehicle because it only has FWD or AWD, and not a true 4WD system is a little different than other people knocking a vehicle like the GC, or the commercials for the GC because it has a larger fuel tank. No matter the vehicle, a larger fuel tank is a benefit. Not all vehicles are best with FWD/AWD, and would perform better with 4WD.

 

I'm not saying everyone in CO wants a Durango or GC, but will say I've seen the streets littered with new GC's, but very few Explorers and Durango's. Anyways, I think any and everyone would want the extra range, no matter what vehicle they drive. And the capabilities in towing, I'm sure if that was a major factor in their purchase, they'd opt for the V8 GC or Durango before the Explorer. Most people that venture into the mountains that I know, typically purchase their vehicles with the top of the line motor. Our altitude and mountain climbs take a toll, and sixes just don't cut it most the time, especially in vehicles that weigh as much as those mentioned. That's why I've said the Explorer needs the EB, it'd help tremendously here in CO for both normal driving and towing. Couldn't say about the other 49 states, especially the flat states, and those that don't get snow.

 

Sure, the Explorer meets the demands of most, I've never denied this. I've admitted it doesn't fit my needs. But again, for I don't know how many times I've said this, for people to simply discredit this PM article, or the article of another magazine or website, because it shows some negatives about the Explorer, or area's where others do better, simply is tom foolery. That's been the point I've been trying to get across. Yes, it's a great vehicle. But it's not the best at everything. When these reviews come out, and it shows it's not the "all world" SUV/CUV people here claim it is, all they do is bash the magazine/website, saying they are wrong. That is my issue. Accept it's short comings, as I have, we'd have no problem.

 

Yes, as you said, it may be a selling point to people towing trailers with their fullsize pickup truck. Those, however, are not most Grand Cherokee and Durango buyers.

I know plenty of people who tow their fishing boat, or pop-up camper, or jet ski's or dirt bikes/ATV's with their mid-size SUV. And many of them various model mid-size SUV's. The point being, for those smaller items, the Durango and GC, with their optional V8's, should and more likely will tow that cargo much easier than the Explorer. Why is that so hard to accept by so many. It's not saying the Explorer is a slouch at towing, just means there are better options in that class for said purpose.

[2005Explorer]

Fun Fact: Ford is the top selling utility automaker in the US with nearly 300k utility vehicles sold and the year isn't even over yet... I wonder how many chassis overlap sales there are(i.e: Explorer, Flex, Taurus). Close to 200k if not more.

 

Fun Fact: Almost 50% of that total utility volume for the year has been provided by one model.

[akirby]

No matter the vehicle, a larger fuel tank is a benefit.

 

No it's not. If you don't drive a lot the extra weight is a detriment and fuel that sits in the tank too long can go bad. It's only a benefit if you drive a LOT.

 

Not all vehicles are best with FWD/AWD, and would perform better with 4WD.

 

I've never needed AWD, much less 4WD. The extra weight and fuel mileage penalty would not make my Fusion perform better with AWD or 4WD.

 

I've seen the streets littered with new GC's, but very few Explorers and Durango's.

 

I saw one new explorer today and no new JGCs or Durangos. Based on that I think Chrysler should kill the JGC and Durango because nobody is buying them.

[2005Explorer]

I've never needed AWD, much less 4WD. The extra weight and fuel mileage penalty would not make my Fusion perform better with AWD or 4WD.

 

So should AWD or 4WD be dropped from the line up because you have never needed it? Seems like it just adds weight and a fuel mileage penalty.

 

If we assume that Ford is selling mostly FWD vehicles it's hard to make a business case for the extra cost in engineering and tooling to have AWD or 4WD models right? See I'm starting to learn how business should be run according to akirby. Appeal only to your largest market and cut anything and everything that falls outside that window. Remember it's not about what anyone wants, it's about what can be sold for the most profit with the least amount of engineering expense.

[akirby]

So should AWD or 4WD be dropped from the line up because you have never needed it? Seems like it just adds weight and a fuel mileage penalty.

 

If we assume that Ford is selling mostly FWD vehicles it's hard to make a business case for the extra cost in engineering and tooling to have AWD or 4WD models right? See I'm starting to learn how business should be run according to akirby. Appeal only to your largest market and cut anything and everything that falls outside that window. Remember it's not about what anyone wants, it's about what can be sold for the most profit with the least amount of engineering expense.

 

You missed my point. V8-X said every vehicle would benefit from a bigger fuel tank and true 4WD. I was just giving an example where that wasn't necessarily true.

 

What people want only matters so far as they're willing to pay for it. Do you know what you get when you just build cars that you think people want without paying attention to costs, business cases and bottom lines? You get Bob Lutz and GM and bankruptcy.

 

Don't forget that Ford still isn't out of debt and was still in the red when they made the decision on the Explorer.

 

What would they have gained by updating the old Explorer BOF RWD platform? It would have cost a LOT more. Where would it be built? They would have had to keep an entire factory open just to build it whereas the D3/D4 version could share a plant. There is no evidence it would have sold more volume or could have demanded higher ATPs just because it was RWD. In fact many buyers would have been turned off by the ride quality and handling (unless the plan was to build a new RWD unibody platform which would have been ASTRONOMICALLY expensive).

 

So let's see what they would have gained to make up for the lost profits.

 

1. Respect from true off-roaders who don't actually buy new vehicles anyway

2. Respect and a few sales from Colorado folks who drive in the mountains and on sand dunes

3. Numerous bench racing titles for people who don't actually drive off-road

 

Seriously - from a business standpoint there is no way to justify any other option given Ford's position at the time.

 

Once Ford is debt-free and making tons of profits and have addressed Lincoln, the Expy/Navi, the small truck market, etc. and they have extra cash lying around to do some pet/niche products then we may see some of the vehicles you guys are wanting. Until then, you bet your ass Ford will be concentrating on products that can make them the most money and serve the widest audience.

 

I sincerely hope you guys don't ever try to run your own business. You'll be bankrupt within 6 months.

[fordmantpw]

Sure, the Explorer meets the demands of most, I've never denied this. I've admitted it doesn't fit my needs. But again, for I don't know how many times I've said this, for people to simply discredit this PM article, or the article of another magazine or website, because it shows some negatives about the Explorer, or area's where others do better, simply is tom foolery. That's been the point I've been trying to get across. Yes, it's a great vehicle. But it's not the best at everything. When these reviews come out, and it shows it's not the "all world" SUV/CUV people here claim it is, all they do is bash the magazine/website, saying they are wrong. That is my issue. Accept it's short comings, as I have, we'd have no problem.

 

I don't think the article is being discredited because it shows a negative, but because they are focusing on one area that 99% of buyers won't use.

 

 

I know plenty of people who tow their fishing boat, or pop-up camper, or jet ski's or dirt bikes/ATV's with their mid-size SUV. And many of them various model mid-size SUV's. The point being, for those smaller items, the Durango and GC, with their optional V8's, should and more likely will tow that cargo much easier than the Explorer. Why is that so hard to accept by so many. It's not saying the Explorer is a slouch at towing, just means there are better options in that class for said purpose.

 

If the Durango will tow it easier, then an F250 SD Diesel would be even better, right? So it should be a better vehicle?

 

I'm sure the Explorer will do just fine towing most fishing boats, pop-up campers, jet ski's, or dirt bikes/ATV's, wherever you want to tow them. Will it tow as well as a V8? No, but most folks that buy these vehicles run empty the majority of the time, and like the better ride/handling and fuel economy the majority of the time.

 

And really, for the percentage of the people that really do actually tow with their midsize SUV, if Ford loses those buyers, but gain more due to the other positives, well, then that is a tradeoff that Ford has decided to make. That's the point that we are trying to make. Sure, they may lose 100 customers, but if they gain 200, then it is a tradeoff worth making. In that case Ford has made a better vehicle for 100 more people than they had otherwise. That is precisely Ford's goal!

[F250]

And if you heard it as simply saying it has a bigger gas tank, who really cares? Is that really a feature worth advertising in a television spot? Nobody else ever bothers to do it. Probably for a reason.

 

FORD really cares.

When I bought my '06 F150 a larger capacity extended range fuel tank was a seperate extra cost option. Why does Ford offer that? Dont they know nobody cares? They should have consulted NickF1011, he could advise them to just throw gas cans in the bed. At least that's a better idea than trying to carry them inside the passenger compartment of an SUV/CUVs cargo area. Actually my question is why didnt Ford just build all F150s with the larger tank standard, has to cost more to build 2 different tanks for the same truck then make people pay more to get the larger one.

[fordmantpw]

FORD really cares.

When I bought my '06 F150 a larger capacity extended range fuel tank was a seperate extra cost option. Why does Ford offer that? Dont they know nobody cares? They should have consulted NickF1011, he could advise them to just throw gas cans in the bed. At least that's a better idea than trying to carry them inside the passenger compartment of an SUV/CUVs cargo area. Actually my question is why didnt Ford just build all F150s with the larger tank standard, has to cost more to build 2 different tanks for the same truck then make people pay more to get the larger one.

 

To answer your question, if the larger fuel tank was that big of a sell, Ford would just make it standard, and charge the extra price for it. It would mean more profit since they only have to test, build, and install one fuel tank. So, by stating what you just stated, you proved Nick's point!

[jpd80]

The missing piece of the puzzle is what will Ford do with next gen F150 and will there be and F100 sized truck as well.

Until Ford reveal details of what is planned, speculation either way will continue but I don't see a truck slightly smaller

than F150 being too much of an internal competitor, it would more likely enhance combined sales.

Edited August 18, 2011 by jpd80

[NickF1011]

FORD really cares.

 

I've never seen an F-series commercial that touts the fuel capacity. That's my point. Sure, it's a feature, but is it really a feature worth mentioning in a television spot? Not really. The only reason you'd mention it would be if you were trying to imply something else by it.

Edited August 18, 2011 by NickF1011

[J-150]

I feel really bad for the people of Colorado. Imagine what those unfortunate folks had to do back 20 years ago when 5.0 truck enginEs only put out 175 hp.

[akirby]

I've never seen an F-series commercial that touts the fuel capacity. That's my point. Sure, it's a feature, but is it really a feature worth mentioning in a television spot? Not really. The only reason you'd mention it would be if you were trying to imply something else by it.

 

Or you had nothing else to brag about.

[fordmantpw]

I've never seen an F-series commercial that touts the fuel capacity. That's my point. Sure, it's a feature, but is it really a feature worth mentioning in a television spot? Not really. The only reason you'd mention it would be if you were trying to imply something else by it.

 

Or you had nothing else to brag about.

 

Exactly what I was going to say.

 

I feel really bad for the people of Colorado. Imagine what those unfortunate folks had to do back 20 years ago when 5.0 truck enginEs only put out 175 hp.

 

 

Yeah, I know. Heck, it was a 2-day trip, just to get a gallon of milk! Oh wait, they milked their own cows back then...

Edited August 18, 2011 by fordmantpw

[V8-X]

That's where you are absolutely, totally wrong. BOF SUV sales took a nose dive the last decade while BOF crossovers skyrocketed.

Show me where I said I have issue with it being uni-body versus BOF? I don't, that's the thing. Jeep has used it for years and have been successful with it. Like I stated, I have more issue with ground clearance, the FWD/AWD setup and engine options. Those last three are my personal dislikes. Doesn't mean the Explorer won't sell, doesn't mean it's not a good vehicle. This whole debate has been about the Durango being a better tow rig, plain and simple. Why people want to come in and continue to say "well the Explorer is more fuel efficient", are simply denying the fact that the Durango is at least better in one aspect. I've never said the Durango is a better overall vehicle. Never said that. I just want people to quit making excuses for the Explorer, and simply accept, the Durango is superior in this one aspect.

 

I guarantee you that 90% of prospective Explorer buyers don't give a rats behind whether it's FWD or RWD based.

Totally agree. That's not the point I'm getting at though. Like I've stated, the Durango's RWD setup and more powerful engine options, are just two reasons why it's a better tow vehicle than the Explorer. Plain and simple. This debate has nothing to do with who sells better, who is more fuel efficient, what more people prefer, or any other aspect than towing. Isn't that what the commercials posted were all about, towing? So like I admit, the Explorer has the upper hand in many area's over the Durando, while this is only one area the Durango is better, but there could be more. Doesn't mean the Durango is light year better towing, doesn't mean the Durango is a better "overall" vehicle. Simply means, Dodge is touting this in their commercials, because it is an aspect that is better than the rest within this particular market.

 

If you were in Ford's position 3 years ago (losing money) and you had to choose an option for the new Explorer and your choices were:

 

Build a new platform to appeal to the small minority of folks who do hardcore offroading while compromising the on-road performance for the other 99%

 

OR

 

Build it off D3 which saves a ton of platform and manufacturing costs and still delivers what 90% of the potential Explorer buyers want?

Dang, round in circles we go. Is it so hard to understand by my previous posts, that I have admitted I totally understand why Ford went this route? Does it mean I have to like it? No. Does it mean the Explorer will be better than all other vehicles in it's class in every aspect because of this? No. I'm simply pointing out some of my dislikes, and I'm willing to admit the area's where it falls short of some of the competition, without covering that up with "well it's more efficient" or "99% of the population, blah blah blah". Whether you agree or disagree, I could care less. We have figures and reviews to prove where it's lacking, and my view point is my view and will only align with certain folks. Just as your views will align with a different demographic.

 

See - it's not your personal disappointment that is an issue. It's your insistence that Ford must cater to the whims and desires of a very small group of buyers and if they don't then the vehicle is a failure.

Actually the issue isn't my personal disappointments in the vehicle. The Explorer hasn't appealed to me since the '02 redesign. The issue is others making excuses because another manufacturer creates a commercial that touts their vehicle being better in "one aspect". If people can accept that the Durango is better in that one measly aspect, we wouldn't be going on for days. All these people can do is talk about "fuel efficiency" or "sales" or this and that, in an attempt to discredit the Durango commercial. I could care less if 1% or 50% tow, it still doesn't change the fact that these commercials are speaking the truth. You wouldn't see me arguing if a commercial was posted where the Explorer is pitted against the Durango and the entire commercial talks about mpgs. It's simply the truth. I wouldn't be saying "well the Durango is a better tow vehicle", because that wouldn't have anything to do with mpgs. Do you get it yet?

 

No it's not. If you don't drive a lot the extra weight is a detriment and fuel that sits in the tank too long can go bad. It's only a benefit if you drive a LOT.

Show me the weight difference between both empty tanks. Miniscule. Show me where the owner has to fill the tank to the rim at each fill up. It's each persons prerogative on how full they fill the tank and how much $$$ they have in their wallet. Show me how long it'll take for that gas to go bad. The majority of people will use all the fuel in that tank way before the fuel ever goes bad. I appreciate the attempts at discrediting the benefits of a larger tank though.

 

I've never needed AWD, much less 4WD. The extra weight and fuel mileage penalty would not make my Fusion perform better with AWD or 4WD.

Great for you. But I'd assume the majority of Explorer sales, and CUV sales overall in states that receive any considerable amount of snow, are 4WD and AWD versions. I know a hefty chunk of the Flex, Taraus and other Ford vehicles sold in the Rocky Mountains are with AWD/4WD, because people do find the need and benefit of such features.

 

You missed my point. V8-X said every vehicle would benefit from a bigger fuel tank and true 4WD. I was just giving an example where that wasn't necessarily true.

No I didn't. I said every vehicle would benefit from a larger fuel tank, yes. Didn't say this about 4WD. I stated a vehicle would benefit more with 4WD than AWD, as it'd be more capable. Doesn't mean everyone would want 4WD over AWD. Why do you think they sold 2WD, AWD and 4WD Explorers all at the same time?

 

What would they have gained by updating the old Explorer BOF RWD platform? It would have cost a LOT more. Where would it be built? They would have had to keep an entire factory open just to build it whereas the D3/D4 version could share a plant. There is no evidence it would have sold more volume or could have demanded higher ATPs just because it was RWD. In fact many buyers would have been turned off by the ride quality and handling (unless the plan was to build a new RWD unibody platform which would have been ASTRONOMICALLY expensive).

Again, where did I say it had to be BOF? I didn't. Never said it would sell more if it was RWD. Just the fact that the Durango is a better tow vehicle, partly because it is RWD. Sure I'd like RWD in the Explorer, and think it'd be better, but never said it'd sell better now did I. Where exactly can you find such drastic ride quality difference between a FWD and RWD at?

 

I don't think the article is being discredited because it shows a negative, but because they are focusing on one area that 99% of buyers won't use.

So what if they are focusing on one item. Wasn't that clear by the title of the article, and the tests performed? What if this article was directed at those niche buyers or to a select population. The fact remains, they tested the vehicles and provided the results. End of story. People shouldn't try and prove why the Explorer is best and this article is junk based on other factors that PM never even tested for. I agree, it's about the entire vehicle, but many people do like individual tests like these and break items down, rather than doing a full on test where items aren't always weighted accordingly and certain aspect pushed to the bottom of the results page.

 

I'm sure most here would be praise PM and the Explorer if they conducted a fuel economy test only and the Explorer came out on top.

[V8-X]

If the Durango will tow it easier, then an F250 SD Diesel would be even better, right? So it should be a better vehicle?

Correct an F250 PSD would tow better than a Durango, and it (F250) is a better "tow" vehicle. Doesn't mean the F250 is a better "overall" vehicle than the Durango (even though I do believe the F250 is a better "overall" vehicle in my personal opinion). But the F250 PSD isn't in the category of these vehicles, right? So why are you trying to compare to vehicles that aren't even within this vehicle class? To try and mislead people to the actual issue here it appears.

 

I'm sure the Explorer will do just fine towing most fishing boats, pop-up campers, jet ski's, or dirt bikes/ATV's, wherever you want to tow them. Will it tow as well as a V8? No, but most folks that buy these vehicles run empty the majority of the time, and like the better ride/handling and fuel economy the majority of the time.

I'm sure the Explorer will tow those items, for the most part, and in most parts of the country, just fine. But like I stated, the Durango will simply do it better or easier. And the debate has never been about the vehicle being empty most the time, or that the vehicle rides/handles better or gets better economy. Why do people constantly keep going back to items that had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the commercials, or with the intent of the PM article? People are simply doing this in an attempt to sway people, of fool themselves. The fact remains, no matter how good the fuel economy, no matter how good the Explorer handles/rides or runs empty. The Durango has shown to be the better tow vehicle. Those other factors do not pertain to the topic of towing, or what wast attempted in the PM article.

 

And really, for the percentage of the people that really do actually tow with their midsize SUV, if Ford loses those buyers, but gain more due to the other positives, well, then that is a tradeoff that Ford has decided to make. That's the point that we are trying to make. Sure, they may lose 100 customers, but if they gain 200, then it is a tradeoff worth making. In that case Ford has made a better vehicle for 100 more people than they had otherwise. That is precisely Ford's goal!

Sure, and I understand Ford is willing to accept that trade off. Where have I said they weren't willing to do so??? The sole item is, the Durango, as compared to the Explorer is the better tow vehicle, REGARDLESS of any other factors. Throw the EB 3.5L into the Explorer and up the towing capacity, then we might have a debate.

 

To answer your question, if the larger fuel tank was that big of a sell, Ford would just make it standard, and charge the extra price for it. It would mean more profit since they only have to test, build, and install one fuel tank. So, by stating what you just stated, you proved Nick's point!

If what you say was really true, why do they have an even bigger fuel tank available in the F150 now, bigger than my 30 gallon tank, which to my understanding was the largest tank available in the F150 when I purchased in 2006? And why would they offer that even larger fuel tank, especially now that they have more efficient motors than when I bought my truck with the 5.4L? So Fords actions, based on the continuing of offering larger fuel tanks, does not prove Nicks or your point in the slightest.

 

I feel really bad for the people of Colorado. Imagine what those unfortunate folks had to do back 20 years ago when 5.0 truck enginEs only put out 175 hp.

Also remember, the capabilities of those trucks were much lower. Speed limits were much slower. The WEIGHT of vehicles was drastically less. As was the average weight of a person. You simply can't compare a vehicle of today to that of 20yrs ago. Yes, a lot has changed and drastically improved too.

Edited August 18, 2011 by V8-X

[akirby]

I give up.

[NickF1011]

I give up.

 

Ford should too.

 

Just cancel the Explorer now.

[2005Explorer]

I give up.

 

Here's the thing though you always tell everyone it is not about what customers want it is about how Ford can make the most money. I understand that and of course corporations are ran for one reason and that is to make the shareholders money. In the end it is not really about product or having the best product in it's class. It is about building a product that people will at least find acceptable and then find ways to charge the most amount possible for that product. It is a great idea and it works, however it can also backfire if profit becomes your sole motivation. For example if Ford can find a way to cut $100 out of every product and then turn around and charge another $200 for that product that is a brilliant way to make money. The only issue is when things are cut enough to make your product undesirable then the whole concept backfires. I don't think they have done that with the Explorer, however you could argue that the vehicle is less capable then the model that came before it. As long as Ford can sell it who cares right?

 

It's basically a debate between a car guy and a business guy. The car guy wants things from a vehicle that a business guy doesn't. I'm going to assume that vehicle capability is probably pretty low on your list when it comes to purchasing a new vehicle. You don't care if it can tow and you certainly don't care if it has 4WD or can go off of the pavement. You don't care if it just has a normally aspirated engine or only an automatic available. In fact the only thing you seem to care about is how much Ford can raise the price and reduce expense to save money and make more profit for the corporation. Great. Profit is good, however if you take the profit making plan to far it can backfire on you. Reducing capability is probably fine in the case of the Explorer, however if you start to do it across the line because platform sharing becomes more important then build best in class vehicles the whole idea will go up in smoke. Engineering best in class vehicles is not cheap and if you take the cheap way out in the short term big money, but in the long term you can destroy the nameplate. Lincoln is a classic example of this.

 

Is the new Explorer less capable then the Durango. Yes without a doubt. Do buyers seem to care at this point? Not really. Will they care in the future if capability is further reduced in the name of profit. Maybe not, but it is a gamble.

[suv_guy_19]

I don't think they have done that with the Explorer, however you could argue that the vehicle is less capable then the model that came before it. As long as Ford can sell it who cares right?

 

Well, first, part of making a company consistently profitable is making desirable vehicles that actual consumers buy. Secondly, it isn't really true that the Explorer is less capable than the vehicle it replaced. In some metrics (which are, overall, less important to today's consumer) this Explorer can't do as much as the (not that impressive) product that it replaced. When it comes to the metrics that most people are today concerned with, this Explorer is far more capable than any model that came before it, and thus far, that seems to be a recipe for sales and profit success.

[NickF1011]

however you could argue that the vehicle is less capable then the model that came before it.

 

Less capable in some ways. Far more capable in others.

 

Ford and their customers need to weigh which of those capabilities they prefer more. So far, customers are demonstrating that they like the capabilities that were gained while not really missing those that were lost.

[fordmantpw]

Here's the thing though you always tell everyone it is not about what customers want it is about how Ford can make the most money. I understand that and of course corporations are ran for one reason and that is to make the shareholders money. In the end it is not really about product or having the best product in it's class. It is about building a product that people will at least find acceptable and then find ways to charge the most amount possible for that product. It is a great idea and it works, however it can also backfire if profit becomes your sole motivation. For example if Ford can find a way to cut $100 out of every product and then turn around and charge another $200 for that product that is a brilliant way to make money. The only issue is when things are cut enough to make your product undesirable then the whole concept backfires. I don't think they have done that with the Explorer, however you could argue that the vehicle is less capable then the model that came before it. As long as Ford can sell it who cares right?

 

It's basically a debate between a car guy and a business guy. The car guy wants things from a vehicle that a business guy doesn't. I'm going to assume that vehicle capability is probably pretty low on your list when it comes to purchasing a new vehicle. You don't care if it can tow and you certainly don't care if it has 4WD or can go off of the pavement. You don't care if it just has a normally aspirated engine or only an automatic available. In fact the only thing you seem to care about is how much Ford can raise the price and reduce expense to save money and make more profit for the corporation. Great. Profit is good, however if you take the profit making plan to far it can backfire on you. Reducing capability is probably fine in the case of the Explorer, however if you start to do it across the line because platform sharing becomes more important then build best in class vehicles the whole idea will go up in smoke. Engineering best in class vehicles is not cheap and if you take the cheap way out in the short term big money, but in the long term you can destroy the nameplate. Lincoln is a classic example of this.

 

Is the new Explorer less capable then the Durango. Yes without a doubt. Do buyers seem to care at this point? Not really. Will they care in the future if capability is further reduced in the name of profit. Maybe not, but it is a gamble.

 

It's about giving the bulk of customers what they want, not ALL customers. You can't please EVERYONE ALL of the time, so you please as many as you can as much as you can with the resources you have available. That is true, no matter the product. If Ford decides they need a truly capable SUV for the folks that aren't pleased with the Explorer, they will need to develop a new vehicle when the time (and resources) comes, because making it more towing and off-road capable is going to alienate the current customers who look for a more car-like ride and better fuel economy. Ford chose to chase the masses, not the niche customer.

 

Sure, it upset some folks, but it pleased more than it upset. So, in that case, it is a success. It was a gamble that appears to have paid off so far.

 

 

Less capable in some ways. Far more capable in others.

 

Ford and their customers need to weigh which of those capabilities they prefer more. So far, customers are demonstrating that they like the capabilities that were gained while not really missing those that were lost.

 

 

Amen! Again! I'm not sure how many more times or ways we can say this to get the point across.

Edited August 18, 2011 by fordmantpw

[Deanh]

Here's the thing though you always tell everyone it is not about what customers want it is about how Ford can make the most money. I understand that and of course corporations are ran for one reason and that is to make the shareholders money. In the end it is not really about product or having the best product in it's class. It is about building a product that people will at least find acceptable and then find ways to charge the most amount possible for that product. It is a great idea and it works, however it can also backfire if profit becomes your sole motivation. For example if Ford can find a way to cut $100 out of every product and then turn around and charge another $200 for that product that is a brilliant way to make money. The only issue is when things are cut enough to make your product undesirable then the whole concept backfires. I don't think they have done that with the Explorer, however you could argue that the vehicle is less capable then the model that came before it. As long as Ford can sell it who cares right?

 

It's basically a debate between a car guy and a business guy. The car guy wants things from a vehicle that a business guy doesn't. I'm going to assume that vehicle capability is probably pretty low on your list when it comes to purchasing a new vehicle. You don't care if it can tow and you certainly don't care if it has 4WD or can go off of the pavement. You don't care if it just has a normally aspirated engine or only an automatic available. In fact the only thing you seem to care about is how much Ford can raise the price and reduce expense to save money and make more profit for the corporation. Great. Profit is good, however if you take the profit making plan to far it can backfire on you. Reducing capability is probably fine in the case of the Explorer, however if you start to do it across the line because platform sharing becomes more important then build best in class vehicles the whole idea will go up in smoke. Engineering best in class vehicles is not cheap and if you take the cheap way out in the short term big money, but in the long term you can destroy the nameplate. Lincoln is a classic example of this.

 

Is the new Explorer less capable then the Durango. Yes without a doubt. Do buyers seem to care at this point? Not really. Will they care in the future if capability is further reduced in the name of profit. Maybe not, but it is a gamble.

has everyone forgotten that the Explorers design was based on feedback from focus groups?...its well documented towing and off road prowess, whilst listed at the top of the "needs" column, that when queried, the same people that deemed those as so important barely ever towed or even SNIFFED going offroad .............

[Deanh]

It's about giving the bulk of customers what they want, not ALL customers. You can't please EVERYONE ALL of the time, so you please as many as you can as much as you can with the resources you have available. That is true, no matter the product. If Ford decides they need a truly capable SUV for the folks that aren't pleased with the Explorer, they will need to develop a new vehicle when the time (and resources) comes, because making it more towing and off-road capable is going to alienate the current customers who look for a more car-like ride and better fuel economy. Ford chose to chase the masses, not the niche customer.

 

Sure, it upset some folks, but it pleased more than it upset. So, in that case, it is a success. It was a gamble that appears to have paid off so far.

 

 

 

 

 

Amen! Again! I'm not sure how many more times or ways we can say this to get the point across.

the word is "compromise"....the Explorer is an excellent "compromise"....