Jump to content

Finally spent time with new Aviator


Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, msm859 said:

I am not talking about the GT - the regular Aviator that has the exact same drivetrain, motor etc.  Seems like a lot of weight for some luxury items.

It's definitely things like thicker glass and more sound deadening materials, extra weather seals (which also helps isolate road noise). You would be surprised how much weight that kind of stuff can add. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is correct the lightest Aviator, a Base 3.0L RWD at 4,764lb, is heavier than a loaded Explorer ST.

It is possible that the non-hybrid Aviator still has faster 0-60 than the Explorer ST if the driver demand is more aggressive for the Lincoln, but I would be surprised if it actually does accelerate faster.

The Base Aviator doesn't have air suspension and actually has smaller wheels (19") than the ST (20" or 21"), but as mentioned in the posts above, I guess those sound insulation pack and the seats are *that* heavy.

Edited by dlghtjr90
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I forgot about those seats. Yeah the 30 way adjustable seats weigh a ton. I can pick up the regular ones on my own but I struggle with the 30 ways. 

The base trim are actually 'only' 10-way seats with ratchet headrest mechanism, but the rest of the seat design is looking similar and I'm sure it's heavier than Ford's.

 

https://build.ford.com/dig/Lincoln/Aviator/2020/HD-FULL/Image[|Lincoln|Aviator|2020|1|1.|201A.J7W..UM..88G.SUV.SY3.61N.RVI.64G.EG1.63P.63D.99C.PFL.RWD.44T.RES.TCL.89C.43P.68D.47D.58F.2020 J7W LINCOLN.]/INT/1/vehicle.png

https://build.ford.com/dig/Lincoln/Aviator/2020/HD-FULL/Image[|Lincoln|Aviator|2020|1|1.|202A.J7X..UM..88G.SUV.~VIRTUALPKGPART_BYPAZ_25.~VIRTUALPKGPART_IDBBN_27.SY3.61N.RUA.64N.EG2.65L.52Q.63P.63D.67R.99C.PFL.AWD.44T.RES.TFE.89C.43P.68D.47D.PPS.58F.2020 J7X LINCOLN.]/INT/1/vehicle.png

Edited by dlghtjr90
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2019 at 4:36 PM, blwnsmoke said:

Coming from someone who isn't a moderator on here..  Calling yourself a "somewhat expert" and stating how you have driven over 1,000 cars and 15 years in the auto journal industry etc, one would think that they would know Standard Ford/Lincoln practice as this has been going on for...  well, as long as I can possibly remember (more then the 15 years you have been in Auto Journalism).

If one is going to try to prove/show/state their credentials, be sure that you know what you are talking about.  

Sorry, not sorry.

 

Although you have a decent review, there are a few things that I would disagree with.  Of course the Aviator is more luxurious and offers more than the Explorer has BUT the Explorer ST will outperform the Aviator in every other way except Luxury.  It will corner better, handle better, accelerator faster (we will see about braking better) etc.  The ST is tuned for performance.  I will agree with you that Lincoln has a real winner with the Aviator regardless.

never really had the time to explore the “standard” ford/Lincoln practices. Must you be a moderator to be “somewhat” of an expert? The struggles of the Internet and forums, where many feel entitled. The “expert” mention was a simple disclaimer. Hopefully to better frame my findings. Maybe some took it the wrong way. My apologies. Didn’t want to seem self centered or looking down on anyone. Seems some took offense for some reason. 

I wouldn't call what I said a “review” exactly. Just some preview notes. There’s not much you come to a conclusion about without driving the vehicle.

Guess I need some thicker skin in this forum. However, there is good information here and I appreciate the kind words from others. Thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote. 

Ill take my “somewhat expertise” back to my publication.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AutomotiveAddicts said:

Edmunds claim a curb weight for the explorer st at 4,701 pounds. 

Platinum trim is listed at 4727 and hybrid at 4969, again, according to edmunds. But I would take that with a grain of salt. 

Edmunds has been wrong countless times. So there’s that.

Who knows what options that ST curb weight had.  Mine had most of them and I trust Fords invoice over a 3rd party review.  This is 1 of mine.

I did not choose the smokers ash tray, wheel locks, DVD, rubber mats.  Could all these add up to 95lbs more?  I dont think so.

40488.jpeg

Edited by blwnsmoke
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, blwnsmoke said:

Who knows what options that ST curb weight had.  Mine had most of them and I trust Fords invoice over a 3rd party review.  This is 1 of mine.

I did not choose the smokers ash tray, wheel locks, DVD, rubber mats.  Could all these add up to 95lbs more?  I dont think so.

40488.jpeg

The difference (curb weight to shipping weight) is probably fuel. A full tank (20.2 gallons) would be 121 lbs. Pretty sure Ford doesn't ship the vehicles with any more than a couple of gallons in the tanks. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jcartwright99 said:

Ok, my hypothesis may be off....or not. I didn't realize there was such a weight disparity. If a lot of that 650lbs of torque com comes on fast, then it may not be a big deal. We'll see when the reviews start hitting.

Well if the electric motor has 250 lbs of torque (or more) that will all be there at zero rpm.  Then you will add the ICE torque as it spools up.  I am just wondering why Lincoln is being so coy about the GT specs.  They already gave us the Euro Explorer PHEV and the Escape PHEV - by now they certainly know the battery size - and they should have final numbers on hp and torque.  Are they having technical problems or waiting to surprise everyone to get a bumb in buzz after the first waive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Flying68 said:

The difference (curb weight to shipping weight) is probably fuel. A full tank (20.2 gallons) would be 121 lbs. Pretty sure Ford doesn't ship the vehicles with any more than a couple of gallons in the tanks. 

20.2 gallons, which I presume you got it from the lincoln.com website,.. but is it?

I am seeing a (pleasantly surprising) 21.4 gallons from our EPA website.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=41486&id=41488

 

I am guessing the 21.4 gallon is indeed the actual capacity but when you see '0 miles til empty' is when you use up 20.2 gallons.

Still, this is the first time I'm seeing a mismatch between EPA number vs. OEM website number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dlghtjr90 said:

I am guessing the 21.4 gallon is indeed the actual capacity but when you see '0 miles til empty' is when you use up 20.2 gallons.

Doesn't work that way.  It's either a typo or it's different on different models (AWD vs FWD e.g.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dlghtjr90 said:

20.2 gallons, which I presume you got it from the lincoln.com website,.. but is it?

I am seeing a (pleasantly surprising) 21.4 gallons from our EPA website.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=41486&id=41488

 

I am guessing the 21.4 gallon is indeed the actual capacity but when you see '0 miles til empty' is when you use up 20.2 gallons.

Still, this is the first time I'm seeing a mismatch between EPA number vs. OEM website number.

No, from Ford.com specifications for the Explorer under capacities it has:

Fuel capacity XLT / Limited
ST / Platinum
17.9 U.S. gal
20.2 U.S. gal

 

I realize this thread is about the Aviator, but the post I was responding too was in response to an Explorer ST.  However Lincoln does list the Aviator with a 20.2 gallon tank.  The EPA site also lists the 2.3L Explorer with a 19.2 gallon tank.  My guess is that the EPA is listing total capacity (fuel lines, etc.) and Ford is listing the capacity from zero on the gauge or the point at which the fuel pump may start to cavitate.

Edited by Flying68
clarify
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Flying68 said:

I realize this thread is about the Aviator, but the post I was responding too was in response to an Explorer ST.  However Lincoln does list the Aviator with a 20.2 gallon tank.  The EPA site also lists the 2.3L Explorer with a 19.2 gallon tank.  My guess is that the EPA is listing total capacity (fuel lines, etc.) and Ford is listing the capacity from zero on the gauge or the point at which the fuel pump may start to cavitate.

 

Yep it seems the 3.0L Explorer has matching fuel tank size with the Aviator.

I'm looking at other Ford & Lincoln products including the outgoing Explorer and both the EPA and the Ford website says 18.6 gallons, etc.

Perhaps this is a new rule for 2020MY+ to have different tank size definitions between EPA and Ford?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...