edselford Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 I have been reading about the Ford Everest today and it looks like a very nice vehicle. I just wonder if it might have a future here in North America at some future point in time as the replacement of the 2016 Ford Explorer? If the Everest body were made out of aluminum, this vehicle might be at a much lower weight than the current Explorer. At 17 city and 23 highway, the current Explorer fuel economy is the only thing I could complain about! I know that the 2.3l in the 2016 Explorer will do better. I also noticed that the old body on frame Explorer had better road and noise isolation that the 2011 Explorer I owned. I am sure there is not just one way to build a next generation SUV. Body on frame with an aluminum body is one method. Unitized body with composites may be another way or maybe Unitized body made out of all aluminum could be the other. The auto writers seem to push new things as better, ie McPherson strut front suspension, front wheel drive versus rear wheel drive, Unitized construction. They are usually wrong for the wrong reasons. What do you guys think Edselford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 Well I much prefer the automatic 4x4 in my Escape for actual winter driving than the traditional 4x4 in my Bronco, just handles so much better on the ice, though it's hard to compare when they have such different tires. I'm sure as far as brute forces and cutting through feet of snow however, the Bronco probably wins hands down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 New explorer is probably going on a new unibody cd6 platform shared with a new Aviator. No reason to think it wouldn't also be sold globally as an Everest replacement (if that's the right size). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 Thinking about the Everest, it is one vehicle segment that Ford, IMO does not participate in US market right now. All kinds of crossover variants-Escape, Edge, Flex, Explorer, Lincoln versions, but if you want a true 4 x 4 you buy a Jeep, Durango or a Japanese vehicle. We will never see it, unless all of a sudden T-6 Ranger makes sense and they build that here. Ranger/Everest are same platform correct??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 Did you miss the Explorer/aviator platform discussion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 (edited) New explorer is probably going on a new unibody cd6 platform shared with a new Aviator. No reason to think it wouldn't also be sold globally as an Everest replacement (if that's the right size).dunno what a CD6 is ... did you mean F-Awd CD4+3 (stretched CD4)?or future Rwd "D6"? (now wondering if there's any relation between D6 and T6??) just-imho the CD4+3 (Taurus/MKS & Explorer/Aviator) has been cancelled (possibly EXCEPT for China = Taurus & long Wlb MKZ & Edge-3-row) Edited December 6, 2014 by 2b2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 What was reported as D6 is really CD6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 (edited) I believe D6 was a typo, and CD6 is the platform one article referred to as D6. (Or what akirby said) Edited December 6, 2014 by sullynd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 (edited) Google Larry Rouse Linkedin Ford Edited December 6, 2014 by sullynd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 Interesting to note he also worked an Jeep and LX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 Did you miss the Explorer/aviator platform discussion? I had suppressed that traumatic memory, thanks. It's bad enough you and Richard getting crosswise, but you agreeing with Biker...I still have nightmares... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 Did you miss the Explorer/aviator platform discussion? I guess I did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 I had suppressed that traumatic memory, thanks. It's bad enough you and Richard getting crosswise, but you agreeing with Biker...I still have nightmares... Great. I had suppressed that part of the discussion. Now I have to go erase it again. Where's my black pen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 I guess I did Feel free to go read the entire thing but a couple of sources have indicated that the next explorer and aviator would be RWD/AWD on a new platform which we think is CD6 (unibody). Supposedly this platform cand do fwd, RWD and AWD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 Only Lincoln products have been associated with RWD/AWD configuration. The Explorer will almost certainly remain FWD/AWD for reasons which are clearly elaborated on in the thread, and which have not been contradicted by reputable sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 We offered several plausible reasons for explorer to go RWD - mainly higher ATPs on current explorers and having significantly more volume to amortize the cost of the platform. Richards reply to that was, essentially..... Nuh-uh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 (edited) There is no indication that higher ATPs would result from RWD configuration, and as for amortization costs, that has been more than superabundantly explained as a non-starter. The platform costs would be amortized over everything, FWD & RWD, and the transmission bolted onto RWD models could be the same RWD transmission used in the Mustang and F150, which supplies enormous amortization volume. The FWD transmission would also be used as the AWD transmission, and would thus be amortized across every AWD equipped vehicle built on the platform, as well as the FWD vehicles. Edited December 6, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 I would also point out that unless the Explorer is FWD, there is zero point in calling this a FWD/RWD platform, as there will be no FWD vehicles built on the platform if the Explorer is not built on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 I expect cd6 to be the replacement for cd4 so you have all of the existing cd4 vehicles that could be FWD. Higher ATPs aren't the result of RWD - it just allows a slightly more expensive platform to be used and maintain a healthy margin. If explorers were only selling in the $30K-$40K range and not close to $60K it wouldn't be as feasible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 (edited) I doubt very much that CD4 will be replaced by CD6. You compromise the Fusion's midsize packaging with a longitudinal engine, unless you really like having crowded footwells. Recall that the sourced Reuters article (yeah, I know it's Reuters) said absolutely nothing about midsize anything). You'll note that there's no mention of CD5. CD5 will be the logical evolution of CD4, IMO, and CD6 will handle the larger products on that platform: the PIU, Explorer, Aviator, S-Max(?), Galaxy, etc. Edited December 6, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 Does anyone believe the Everest will be CD6? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 I don't think so. I think, as someone else has pointed out, the Everest is intended to be a lower cost product, and CD6 does not seem likely to be a low cost platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 I suppose I should have used [Rhetorical] tags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 So you think that CD5 is CD sized but CD6 is really D sized but they just decided to call it cd6 instead of d6? Mmmm-Kay........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 (edited) So you think that CD5 is CD sized but CD6 is really D sized but they just decided to call it cd6 instead of d6? Mmmm-Kay........... The CD4 based Edge being sold in China is longer than the Explorer. So, yeah, D sized stuff on the CD platform. For all I know, they're calling it CD6 because the stuff from the firewall back is being derived from CD4. Edited December 7, 2014 by RichardJensen 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.