RichardJensen Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) Remember when the old Explorer had an optional 3rd row seat? The take rate was extremely low. I think the larger size overall is much more of a factor than the 3rd row by itself. Especially for buyers who don't have children. You would get that by stretching CD4.3 and essentially creating an Edge with as much space behind the 2nd row as you have with the Explorer. Think new Galaxy with an extra inch and a half of ground clearance. Edited October 8, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 @akirby....lets ramp this up, substitute "OK" for "Whatever".......lmao. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 A scientist tells a spider to move and it moves. The scientist then rips off all of the spiders legs. He tells the spider to move again and it doesn't move. He proclaims his findings to everyone. "Spiders cant hear without legs." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 ...it will probably be 4 years before we see this new RWD platform no?....just-imhocy2017/2018my is my guess IF true = 3 years ± Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 just-imho cy2017/2018my is my guess IF true = 3 years ± based on what ive heard 2016 is earliest, and that corresponds with the Expdition do over....unibody?....GRWD underpinnings?.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 You would get that by stretching CD4.3 and essentially creating an Edge with as much space behind the 2nd row as you have with the Explorer. Think new Galaxy with an extra inch and a half of ground clearance. OK @akirby....lets ramp this up, substitute "OK" for "Whatever".......lmao. OK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 A scientist tells a spider to move and it moves. The scientist then rips off all of the spiders legs. He tells the spider to move again and it doesn't move. He proclaims his findings to everyone. "Spiders cant hear without legs." That's actually mostly true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) Jeebus... 18 pages already. I would like to point out a false argument being thrown about earlier in the thread. RWD doesn't give you better off road performance per se. Locking differential, transfer case, and different suspension designs do that. RWD is more amendable to locking differentials and transfer case etc because those things generally favors longitude engine and gearbox mounting for less complicated engineering. Jeep is Jeep so they have to have something that can survive the Rubicon trail. Grand Cherokee for example offers 5 completely different drivetrain setup: RWD, Quadra Trac I (no low range), Quadra Trac II, Quadra Drive (on demand AWD), Select Terrain. But let's not mistakenly attribute the off road ability of Grand Cherokee to its RWD layout. RWD just make it easier to make a tough off road machine. But Jeep paid a big price for this off road ability... it had to basically design and build 5 different Grand Cherokees (Richard - this is probably the reason Chrysler margin are super thin....) Let's forget RWD for a moment... Does it make any sense for Ford to make a tough off road mid size SUV and go after Grand Cherokee when Jeep only sells tiny handful of the tough off road capable Grand Cherokee? The vast majority of Grand Cherokee sold is RWD or one of the simpler AWD systems. If your answer is no - that Explorer doesn't need to take on this tiny niche off road market segment - then the rationale for going RWD is pretty much gone. Is Grand Cherokee getting demonstrably higher transaction prices than Explorer now? Does having 5 completely different drivetrains add value to Jeep aside from the romantic notion that it can supposedly tackle the Rubicon trail *properly equiped*? Is that relevant to Ford? And vis a vie a potential Lincoln MKT replacement (Aviator if you will, but I don't think that name will come back), will RWD command higher prices than Acura MDX? Audi Q7? Upcoming Lexus TX (7 seat RX)? Edited October 9, 2014 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 It's not RWD per se. It's having a full time 4WD/AWD setup based on a RWD platform. The problem with the current Explorer system is that the PTU and differential can't handle sending torque to the rear wheels for any extended period of time - it burns it up. And the cost to increase the torque capacity and make it a full time AWD system either isn't possible or isn't worth the effort. And again - if this was only about Explorer it wouldn't make much sense. It only makes sense as one vehicle of many sharing a platform that is needed for Lincoln. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 And for the record - nobody is saying it HAS to happen this way. Ford could just as easily keep Explorer on CD4.whatever. We're just saying that IF certain things are true like the Aviator and no new U.S. Taurus then we could see Ford doing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) Grand Cherokee for example offers 5 completely different drivetrain setup: RWD, Quadra Trac I (no low range), Quadra Trac II, Quadra Drive (on demand AWD), Select Terrain. But let's not mistakenly attribute the off road ability of Grand Cherokee to its RWD layout. RWD just make it easier to make a tough off road machine. But Jeep paid a big price for this off road ability... it had to basically design and build 5 different Grand Cherokees (Richard - this is probably the reason Chrysler margin are super thin....) Let's forget RWD for a moment... Does it make any sense for Ford to make a tough off road mid size SUV and go after Grand Cherokee when Jeep only sells tiny handful of the tough off road capable Grand Cherokee? The vast majority of Grand Cherokee sold is RWD or one of the simpler AWD systems. If your answer is no - that Explorer doesn't need to take on this tiny niche off road market segment - then the rationale for going RWD is pretty much gone. Is Grand Cherokee getting demonstrably higher transaction prices than Explorer now? Does having 5 completely different drivetrains add value to Jeep aside from the romantic notion that it can supposedly tackle the Rubicon trail *properly equiped*? Is that relevant to Ford? The only difference between Quadra Trac II and Quadra Drive is the addition of ELSD. Otherwise, same transfer case. SelectTerrain is completely electronic. It's on any two speed transfer case automatically, not a "separate drivetrain". It allows for different "modes" much like cars have sport and touring settings. That's like saying Explorer's Terrain Management System denotes an entirely new drivetrain. Quadra Trac I is basically a simple transfer case with no Lo-range....and the base RWD doesn't add any additional cost since its included by default in all the above models. So basically, two different transfer cases, a front LSD and some electronic nannies are all that separate your RWD model from the top level model. That isn't "5 completely different drivetrains" and not much different then what the Explorer offers in terms of complexity (number of engines transmissions, etc...). Edited October 9, 2014 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Jeebus... 18 pages already. And vis a vie a potential Lincoln MKT replacement (Aviator if you will, but I don't think that name will come back), will RWD command higher prices than Acura MDX? Audi Q7? Upcoming Lexus TX (7 seat RX)? Yeah, and like three or four pages of legit content--and I'm probably more to blame for the repetitive nature of several posts than anyone else. I'm dubious about Lincoln's pricing power in this market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I'm dubious about Lincoln's pricing power in this market. I thought Lincoln was ok and you were only concerned about Explorer pricing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) I thought Lincoln was ok and you were only concerned about Explorer pricing. They can sell incremental volume in this market at practically any price, but you can't build a business case for a $70k+ Lincoln based primarily off US volume. The market's not interested. And I'm not concerned about Explorer pricing, I'm concerned about Explorer costing. Edited October 9, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 They can sell incremental volume in this market at practically any price, but you can't build a business case for a $70k+ Lincoln based primarily off US volume. The market's not interested. Good thing they're planning to make global vehicles now. And I'm not concerned about Explorer pricing, I'm concerned about Explorer costing. If you reduce Explorer's profit margin by $500 but you increase sales 10% and you save millions by having a single platform instead of two - I don't see the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) I've already addressed all that. None of it has grown more persuasive with the passage of time. Edited October 9, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I've already addressed all that. None of it has grown more persuasive with the passage of time. Translation: I'm still too stuffed up and and cranky to accept the fact that any thoughts other than mine may be acceptable. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Translation: I'm still too stuffed up and and cranky to accept the fact that any thoughts other than mine may be acceptable. I didn't say akirby's thoughts were unacceptable. I said they were unpersuasive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I didn't say akirby's thoughts were unacceptable. I said they were unpersuasive. Oh Richard, we're all just giving you a hard time now. Hope you feel better soon. Allergies suck. Been there, done that, got the shots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I'm dubious about Lincoln's pricing power in this market. If, say, RWD/AWD Aviator happens and they immediately price it against BMW X5, then I'd be very very worried. Because there would be a whole lotta Cadillac-ing going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) rather off-topic response ...can't build a business case for a $70k+ Lincoln based primarily off US volume...even I won't try to guess volume butmy ideal Lincoln lineup has - Navigator - Continental(s) (unrelated to MKS) - MKSreplacement SuperEnergi (top end) & BEV - Aviator & Aviator-Sport (top end only) - LincStangs all with models/trims over $70k ... THIS decade, as soon as they can debut (none over $99,999 tho) Edited October 9, 2014 by 2b2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I've always found Benedryl works best for me. Fortunately it doesn't make me drowsy. (That's RWD Benedryl. None of this FWD Claritin stuff for me). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I've always found Benedryl works best for me. Fortunately it doesn't make me drowsy. (That's RWD Benedryl. None of this FWD Claritin stuff for me). I think you've got the characterization wrong. RWD = Benadryl, Claritin, etc. FWD = their generic equivalents. Because RWD is more expensive. :fear: 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Oh Richard, we're all just giving you a hard time now. Hope you feel better soon. Allergies suck. Been there, done that, got the shots. I'm just glad flonase is going OTC. I hate waiting around at pharmacy counters for that stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I've always found Benedryl works best for me. Fortunately it doesn't make me drowsy. (That's RWD Benedryl. None of this FWD Claritin stuff for me). Diphenhydramine is, allegedly, the best antihistamine yet discovered. The only reasons for taking Claritin/Zyrtec/etc. is they're non-drowsy. I have had a couple days this week that have needed more than one shot of flonase, a rescue inhaler and 3 benadryls. Yay! 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.