Jump to content

Explorer misses top safety mark


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, akirby said:


Statistics showed the Explorer was no more prone to rollovers than any other SUV at that time.  

 

IIHS issued a safety report in 2005, finding that Ford Explorers made between 1999 - 2002 had the fourth highest rate of driver death of the 47 SUVs that were part of the study. In another study the year before, the Ford Explorer SportTrac received the worst rollover rating of any SUV tested. These facts were brought up in lawsuits involving Explorer rollovers incidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

IIHS issued a safety report in 2005, finding that Ford Explorers made between 1999 - 2002 had the fourth highest rate of driver death of the 47 SUVs that were part of the study. In another study the year before, the Ford Explorer SportTrac received the worst rollover rating of any SUV tested. These facts were brought up in lawsuits involving Explorer rollovers incidents.

 

So the number one selling SUV had only the fourth highest rate of death? Given the numbers it sold-you'd think it would be higher....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

IIHS issued a safety report in 2005, finding that Ford Explorers made between 1999 - 2002 had the fourth highest rate of driver death of the 47 SUVs that were part of the study.

 

I'm going to guess those numbers were not adjusted to account for percentage of vehicles or miles driven.  Explorer was far outselling all the others so there were far more of them on the road so naturally they had higher absolute numbers.  But that also means there were 3 other SUVs that had more deaths.   That's because SUVs with their high center of gravity are always more prone to rollovers AND people don't know how to drive them.

 

AND - people weren't wearing seatbelts back then.  Even today when you hear about a fatal SUV rollover you can almost bet the victims weren't wearing their seatbelts.

 

Tire failure was the root cause, not the Explorer.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, akirby said:

 

So it's just price that deterred them?

No. They were not impressed (just didn't like) the Explorer's ride, sound level, interior quality etc.   THEN, when you add on that they had done their research prior to beginning the test drives, and they knew that some of the competition offers some items as standard in comparable trim levels - that Ford doesn't  (they didn't mention which ones), that didn't help either.

 

From what I have heard / read of Hackett, he is not the one that will instill in Ford that every product should have the goal to be "best in class".  His concentration on delivering profit level instead - probably means too much de-contenting. Add in all of the unnecessary expense of botched launches they've spent over recent times and competition offering better value in some cases, makes delivering that profit level tough IMO.  Fortunately, this round will only be a 3 year lease so it's not like they are going to lose them for an extended period. Hopefully, in 3 years Ford will have the desired level of product that they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Harley Lover said:

 

But you've argued the opposite side of the issue when discussing the fate of the Fusion.

 

Oh the new Explorer was changed enough so that it looks new both inside and out.  As Deanh pointed out in person they're totally different.  And the interior is completely different.   Had they done the same changes with Fusion it would have been great.

 

Look at it this way - I don't think any current Explorer owner would look at it in person and say "this is just like my old one".   With Fusion that was absolutely true.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, RaZor said:

No. They were not impressed (just didn't like) the Explorer's ride, sound level, interior quality etc.   THEN, when you add on that they had done their research prior to beginning the test drives, and they knew that some of the competition offers some items as standard in comparable trim levels - that Ford doesn't  (they didn't mention which ones), that didn't help either.

 

From what I have heard / read of Hackett, he is not the one that will instill in Ford that every product should have the goal to be "best in class".  His concentration on delivering profit level instead - probably means too much de-contenting. Add in all of the unnecessary expense of botched launches they've spent over recent times and competition offering better value in some cases, makes delivering that profit level tough IMO.  Fortunately, this round will only be a 3 year lease so it's not like they are going to lose them for an extended period. Hopefully, in 3 years Ford will have the desired level of product that they want.

 

Well it's not decontenting if you just move some of the content to higher trim levels and higher pricing - that's just a price increase.   Maybe they decontented the extra usb ports?

 

There is a fine line between controlling costs and cheapening the product too much.  I don't know if Explorer has crossed that line just yet - we'll have to wait and see.  They certainly went all out on powertrains and top of the line content.

 

However, you need to understand that a lot of so-called media outlets just parrot what they read elsewhere, so if one bashes it the others just do it automatically.   And most were based on pre production models.   It's frustrating but I would wait for a few months for actual owner opinions and more reviews before passing final judgement.

 

One thing is clear - Ford is not going after the cheap end of the market and they're willing to lose some sales to do that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Explorer was such a disappointment to buyers, it wouldn't be selling at near 2018 levels with those higher prices.

I'm gonna call this as certain buyer groups feeling let down with a perceived lack of value in base trim and options.

 

A lot of the issue, be that the perception of  "decontented" or lack of value has to do with buyers either expecting

certain equipment  to be standard or available as a low cost option, not locked away in  an expensive bundled

options package. Those bundled options are a cost saving to Ford but also popular options that a lot of buyers

will  order as a group anyway.  So I wonder if this is push back from certain buyers wanting to pick and choose

which items they get without having to include all the extra equipment they don't want to pay for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

Explorer went through development hell.

 

If you want to blame anyone, blame Fields for canceling it. Ford had to bring the program back from the dead and that led to some mistakes.

Fields delayed the development of lots of projects and by the time they're now delivered,  the clinical research on customer buying pasterns is now so out of date making Ford look a little out of step with current expectations...

This is why Hackett has implemented those EPLs, to keep product development on track with what buyers actually want.

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Fields delayed the development of lots of projects and by the time they're now delivered,  the clinical research on customer buying pasterns is now so out of date making Ford look a little out of step with current expectations...

This is why Hackett has implemented those EPLs, to keep product development on track with what buyers actually want.

 

That's an interesting thought.

 

I guess they weren't able to update those aspects once restarted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

That's an interesting thought.

 

I guess they weren't able to update those aspects once restarted?

The reason for EPLs would suggest that Ford simply couldn't move fast enough under the old system.

by the time those vehicles wee launched, they could be seven years or more out of date with customer

expectations..

 

One thing I think we can all agree on is that Ford is slow responding to changing market trends,

we're still waiting until later next year to see all those new Utilities out of Mexico while GM has

successfully pivoted and will be roughly two years ahead of Ford by theat time

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where the rumors are coming from suggesting the Explorer was delayed or cancelled during development and then restarted under Hackett.  Part of the CD6 program was cancelled, but the Explorer and Aviator have been on schedule from the start.  It was one of Field's first projects, he wanted a platform for Lincoln and this was it...until it wasn't.

 

I don't think CD6 is well suited for the duty it ended up getting, the priorities are out of step with a family hauler (terrible rear seat and cargo packaging), but I don't mind if Ford takes a different path with an emphasis on excellent driving dynamics and less on family utility. 

 

 

 

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

Correct.

Near the end of his tenure Fields wanted to slow new vehicle launches  down because he was convinced

by Ford's own projections that a big slowdown was coming in 2017, something that never eventuated.

 

 I doubt that he actually delayed the engineering development, that would be locked and a very expensive thing to stop and restart but slowing it down to delay the changeover of Explorer by a year or so is a possibility.

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just feels like a lost opportunity  that Ford skipped the CD6 cars or worse,  a pair of CD6 crossovers for itself and Lincoln, we know that Ford is doubling down on those mid sized BEV crossovers but maybe they could have had hybrids and PHEVs crossovers today instead of fudging around with white space vehicles...it all seems just so unnecessary.

 

It gets back to corporations rushing head long into BEVs because they "see" big profits coming but is it necessary to go so hard at them to the point of excluding valuable PHEVs today, something that will transition a lot of buyers to the new era tech when ready.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, blwnsmoke said:

2016

 

That was the last major refresh, there was another in 2018 (that barely changed anything outside of the grill) and added more features. 

 

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/reviews/2018-ford-explorer-preview/

 



There are a few aesthetic changes in store for the 2018 Explorer. You might not be able to tell at first, but there are some slight tweaks to the front and rear fascia. The grille is new, as is the fog lamp assembly. The most powerful engine also receives four tailpipes. Five new wheel designs are available, as well.

 

Which further reinforces that the car was supposed to go on as is for a few more years instead of being replaced roughly two years later 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...