Hugh Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 The market for a 3 row CUV in between a 2 row Edge and a 3 row Explorer is too small to warrant a different tophat. It's 3 row Edge or nothing at this point I think. They don't NEED it but if they already have it for China then it would be easy to bring it here. IIRC, The Santa Fe has a 3rd row option so having that in the Edge makes sense. On the other hand, the Explorer is not overall that much bigger than the Edge so why bother? Meh, if there's a place for it market wise go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted April 8, 2015 Author Share Posted April 8, 2015 IIRC, The Santa Fe has a 3rd row option so having that in the Edge makes sense. On the other hand, the Explorer is not overall that much bigger than the Edge so why bother? Meh, if there's a place for it market wise go for it. When comparing to the current Explorer, you're absolutely correct. However, keep in mind that the Edge7 is significantly longer than the current Explorer, and that it very well might be a much better family Truckster if the next Explorer refocuses to a different concept. Which I completely expect it to do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 if the next Explorer refocuses to a different concept. Which I completely expect it to do. Apparently you and I are the only ones who seem to believe that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I'd suggest that the Galaxy, as it currently looks on the interior, would be a poor player in the US market. The reason being is every other minivan on the market in the US offers reasonably easy third row access. The Galaxy, from what I'm seeing in the press photos, has no pass throw gap in the middle of the second floor, and the outboard seats don't seem to tumble forward to allow someone to easily pass by them. I may be wrong there, but it looks like you have to climb over the folded forward seat of the second row to get to the back one. Ford was much closer to a truly competitive US minivan back with the Grand C-Max that they showed. Being slightly larger than the Mazda5, but significantly smaller than the other volume competitors, and backed by Ford's dealer distribution network, it was a promising niche to try and fit a product into. If Ford could have made the smaller dimensions work out to increased efficiency, then it would have been win-win all around. The current offering in that market, the Transit connect Wagon, while being a functional product, doesn't wow in any way shape or form. Being saddled with the 2.5L I4, it is underpowered as compared to the full size minivans, third row access is a bit of a pain and space is rather more limited than even the Mazda5. Those are my impressions from crawling around in one at a local dealership while I was getting my mom's car serviced. The price is also in the territory of the full size minivans while offering nothing superior to any of them except slightly smaller outside dimensions (and not hugely so) and a slight increase in city gas mileage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Apparently you and I are the only ones who seem to believe that. What in pray tell is going to move to? Seems like its successful as is and moving it to something else isn't going to help sales numbers. Not like oh if we make a serious off roader will really help sales IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 What in pray tell is going to move to? Seems like its successful as is and moving it to something else isn't going to help sales numbers. Not like oh if we make a serious off roader will really help sales IMO. Have you been under a rock? We think both Explorer and Aviator are moving to RWD/AWD CD6 platform. It's not just off road capability although that should be better but it will support higher performance options altogether especially for Aviator. Without Aviator it probably wouldn't make sense, but Ford thinks there is room to add some capability and performance to Explorer at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Because they'd have to pay for almost all of the stamping for a 3-Row product from a single product line. That cost would be very minor - they already have door, lift gate and internal structure already done for the Export Edge. It would just be a skin that would be change, stamping dies are not expensive when it comes to total vehicle costs you have a platform and hard points done. It would also sell better than the MKT the moment it came out. You could also sell that version in China as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzach Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 When comparing to the current Explorer, you're absolutely correct. However, keep in mind that the Edge7 is significantly longer than the current Explorer, and that it very well might be a much better family Truckster if the next Explorer refocuses to a different concept. Which I completely expect it to do. Now that makes a lot of sense. If you are right I could totally see Explorer becoming more off road capable and perhaps even move away from the third row and the Edge EL take that spot in a more "Station Wagon" kind of way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 That cost would be very minor - they already have door, lift gate and internal structure already done for the Export Edge. It would just be a skin that would be change, stamping dies are not expensive when it comes to total vehicle costs you have a platform and hard points done. It would also sell better than the MKT the moment it came out. You could also sell that version in China as well. Except you'd have 100% new sheet metal, because you're proposing this as a Lincoln not a Ford. And that is not a trivial cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted April 8, 2015 Author Share Posted April 8, 2015 Explorer won't lose it's third row, but I'd wager that the Edge7 likely has a better 3rd row than the current D4 Explorer, which seems to be wildly successful in spite of itself. Dynamically, I imagine at a D6 Explorer would offer a host of beneifts that would allow them to skew even more towards the upper end of the spectrum where they currenly play, with the Edge7 taking over the average "family hauler" duty currently covered by Flex & base and XLT Explorers. Rewind back to gen5 Explorer's launch... there *was* a quickly put together Aviator in development based off of D4 that was at one point planned to debut with the MCE'd 2016 Explorer. I'd guess that this development, paired with what they experienced in the MKT, is what kickstarted the project that became D6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 It's not just off road capability although that should be better The supposition here is that a RWD platform that will also support sedans will somehow provide better off-road capability than a FWD platform that also supports sedans. And also, apparently, that Ford can significantly raise the ATP of the Explorer (by moving it up market), while somehow or another retaining the same sales volume/utilization of Chicago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted April 8, 2015 Author Share Posted April 8, 2015 I doubt there's need for a 3row MKX with the new Aviator and Navigator in the pipeline. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I doubt there's need for a 3row MKX with the new Aviator and Navigator in the pipeline. The Aviator is 3 years away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted April 8, 2015 Author Share Posted April 8, 2015 The Aviator is 3 years away. Do you think something else could be geared up quicker? There *was* a D4 Aviator being worked on that would be hitting the market now... they couldn't get it to be what they wanted so it was shelved, and I believe it was this situation that birthed D6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 The supposition here is that a RWD platform that will also support sedans will somehow provide better off-road capability than a FWD platform that also supports sedans. And also, apparently, that Ford can significantly raise the ATP of the Explorer (by moving it up market), while somehow or another retaining the same sales volume/utilization of Chicago. Here we go again. It's not the unibody structure it's the ability to have a more functional AWD drivetrain that can send more torque to all 4 wheels for extended periods and possibly in full-time mode as well. And it allows for a sportier sport/SVT version. I don't see why that would add more than $1K-2K to the base prices so it's $32K instead of $30K but you could go a little higher on the upper end with more features and functionality. Think Grand Cherokee. By itself this wouldn't necessarily make sense, but combined with Aviator and the fact that people are already willing to pay $50K for explorers I don't see the downside. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Far more expensive and not nearly as attractive. How is it expensive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Because they'd have to pay for almost all of the stamping for a 3-Row product from a single product line. thats not True. You would share all the Stampings ahead of the b-pillar. most of the floorpan would be common too, with critical stamping (Chassis mounting points, etc) would also be shared. look at the variants available for the Transit and realize that is possible because of the investments in presses that can make multiple parts from a single die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 This theoretical RWD/AWD Explorer/Aviator could likely have improved towing ability as another advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Here we go again. It's not the unibody structure it's the ability to have a more functional AWD drivetrain that can send more torque to all 4 wheels for extended periods and possibly in full-time mode as well. And it allows for a sportier sport/SVT version. I don't see why that would add more than $1K-2K to the base prices so it's $32K instead of $30K but you could go a little higher on the upper end with more features and functionality. Think Grand Cherokee. By itself this wouldn't necessarily make sense, but combined with Aviator and the fact that people are already willing to pay $50K for explorers I don't see the downside. Well, then if it's not going to add much to the base price, why would Ford slot another 7 passenger CUV into the space between it and the Edge? And FWD is eminently capable of full-time AWD, or longer duration torque splits. All you need is a center diff--cf Focus RS. Finally, why on earth would Ford consider a 2 row midsize SUV pn a dedicated platform to be a pattern for a 7 passenger full size CUV built on a shared passenger car platform? Also, isn't the Explorer outselling the Grand Cherokee (209k+PIU in 2014 vs. 184k)? So what is to be gained by copying a smaller vehicle on a more expensive platform that sells in smaller volumes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 thats not True. You would share all the Stampings ahead of the b-pillar. most of the floorpan would be common too, with critical stamping (Chassis mounting points, etc) would also be shared. look at the variants available for the Transit and realize that is possible because of the investments in presses that can make multiple parts from a single die. Jason J is suggesting a Lincoln variant, not the Edge 7 passenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 , and I believe it was this situation that birthed D6. CD6, not D6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 For the same reason people buy 2 row Edges over 2 row Explorers today. Explorer would have a more rugged appearance to go with the underpinnings. And what would you get if you beefed up the current Explorer's AWD system to handle more torque front and rear? CD6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 If Aviator wouldn't work on D4 (and given where Lincoln wants to take the brand I agree that doesn't make sense) then you need a new platform for it. And there isn't much room to improve on D4 Explorer - it's pretty well maxed out on features and capabilities. Doesn't it make sense to get more volume out of CD6 by moving Explorer to CD6 and adding more capabilities to justify even higher ATPs for loaded models? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 For the same reason people buy 2 row Edges over 2 row Explorers today. Explorer would have a more rugged appearance to go with the underpinnings. And what would you get if you beefed up the current Explorer's AWD system to handle more torque front and rear? CD6. 2 row Explorers? -- And you can replace the Explorer's current AWD system with a full time version without any major modifications to the platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 IIRC, The Santa Fe has a 3rd row option so having that in the Edge makes sense. On the other hand, the Explorer is not overall that much bigger than the Edge so why bother? Meh, if there's a place for it market wise go for it. As I said previously, though, Hyundai doesn't have an "Explorer" above the Santa Fe....Santa Fe is as large as they have crossover wise, so it makes sense for them to offer a larger 7 passenger version of it. Ford is not in the same position. 1 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.