Jump to content
  • Custom Search


rperez817

3-Row SUV Comparison Test: Kia Telluride vs. Toyota Highlander vs. Ford Explorer and Six Others

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, akirby said:


I don’t think 2 months is enough time to fix those issues.  Would have helped with launch issues though.  


You would be surprised 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dlghtjr90 said:

 

 

And also stagger the features. Putting in a brand-new 3.0L GTDI and 10-speed transmission and AWD Disconnect and MHT and DAT 2.0 are already a tall order when you have a brand-new RWD platform to deal with.

 

 

But that was shared with Aviator, and ST is the one Explorer model that completely trumps the competition and is selling very well at higher ATPs.

 

Leaving out the 3.3L would have been a better choice maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, akirby said:

Leaving out the 3.3L would have been a better choice maybe.

 

But the Hybrid and PIU didn't hit till summer and the winter respectively. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

But that was shared with Aviator, and ST is the one Explorer model that completely trumps the competition and is selling very well at higher ATPs.

 

Leaving out the 3.3L would have been a better choice maybe.

 

Apparently the 3.3L TiVCT was a strong demand by police. There is a move to change to 2.3L EB for fleet, but the police still want non-GTDI so that's that.

Perhaps dropping 2.3L EB could be interesting choice if 3.3L is 'locked' and considering no other competition offers GTDI engine as a base retail.

 

As for the ST, it was expected to be 20% of the sales, so even though we're proudly stating in the media that ST is selling quite a bit, I think internally it's exactly within the plan.

Edited by dlghtjr90
Also mentioning ST sales

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dlghtjr90 said:

As for the ST, it was expected to be 20% of the sales, so even though we're proudly stating in the media that ST is selling quite a bit, I think internally it's exactly within the plan.

 

You are correct dlghtjr90 sir. The 2020 Explorer order guide ice-capades posted to this site shows Ford's expected breakdown for sales by trim level. 5% Base, 39% XLT, 21% Limited, 20% ST, and 15% Platinum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

But the Hybrid and PIU didn't hit till summer and the winter respectively. 

 

I was thinking of the base model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dlghtjr90 said:

 

Apparently the 3.3L TiVCT was a strong demand by police. There is a move to change to 2.3L EB for fleet, but the police still want non-GTDI so that's that.

Perhaps dropping 2.3L EB could be interesting choice if 3.3L is 'locked' and considering no other competition offers GTDI engine as a base retail.

 

As for the ST, it was expected to be 20% of the sales, so even though we're proudly stating in the media that ST is selling quite a bit, I think internally it's exactly within the plan.

 

I was just thinking of how they could have limited some options and put more time and effort into the interior and suspension tuning.   Ford almost always gets the suspension tuning right.  But this is a completely new platform so maybe it just takes longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

I was just thinking of how they could have limited some options and put more time and effort into the interior and suspension tuning.   Ford almost always gets the suspension tuning right.  But this is a completely new platform so maybe it just takes longer.

 

Part of that suspension tuning issue comes from using integral-link in the rear which is very unusual when most competitors use multi-link. It is due to packaging issues, but what I want to point is it actually could've been used as an advertisement just like Honda advertising they had double-wishbone suspension for sportiness even though that actually degrades the ride comfort, but a lot of people bought into it since it was different from competitors.

 

What I'm more surprised is how Explorer's fuel economy is the best-in-class - 24mpg for 2.3L RWD, 23mpg for 2.3L AWD; good enough to beat Pilot, Telluride, Atlas, etc. The new Toyota Highlander is matching those numbers, but Ford could be making a very big deal that U.S. cars having bad fuel economy is a thing in the past or however they want to spin it.

 

I see so many other advertising opportunities such as using RWD unlike others that are all FWD-based (perhaps except for Durango) so that it's a 'driver's car', or that other guys recycle the platform (Pilot which looks like Odyssey which looks like Ridgeline which looks like Pilot) while Ford is using the latest and greatest platform. There is also a heavy, heavy usage of aluminum (no pun intended) right on par with Mercedes and BMW.

These are the stuff that indeed cost a lot to Ford to develop and engineer, so why not advertise about it? The only ads I see is the guy wearing space suit on his 'Exploration Vehicle' to pick up the kids and do automated parking, but those are features that competitors already do, no? Consumers may not care about these engineering details, but the point is to show that the Explorer has a really solid engineering beneath the skin and hopefully that can divert some of the attention away from the poor interior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After hearing all reviews of the Explorer, I expected the worst. After seeing it at an auto show, I thought it was fine. Maybe not as good as the Telluride, but easily on par with other manufacturers. There is indeed a level of hyberbole in the reviews.

 

Personally I think it used a lot of gray and black while the Telluride had more variety of colors and bright work. Biggest difference is the Telluride does a nice job of integrating the display into the dash, rather than the ipad on top of dash look that is widely used.

 

Didn't drive so didn't comment on that, but I think the platform design is solid. Likely just needs some fine tuning. I'm assuming production quality bugs are being resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dlghtjr90 said:

What I'm more surprised is how Explorer's fuel economy is the best-in-class - 24mpg for 2.3L RWD, 23mpg for 2.3L AWD; good enough to beat Pilot, Telluride, Atlas, etc. The new Toyota Highlander is matching those numbers, but Ford could be making a very big deal that U.S. cars having bad fuel economy is a thing in the past or however they want to spin it.

 

EPA estimated fuel economy for 2020 Explorer 2.3L 2WD is best in class at 24 mpg. But real world testing shows a different picture. In Motor Trend's test loop (5 x 25 mi.), Explorer 2WD got 18.9 mpg. This was worse than Pilot (21.2 mpg), Traverse (19.7), Telluride (19.7), and Palisade (19.2). All except Traverse had AWD.

 

It's probably best that Ford not tout Explorer's fuel economy in its marketing. Last year, Ford got hit with a $1.2 billion lawsuit regarding alleged misstatement of fuel economy for 2019 Ranger and F-150. https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/ford-ranger/2019-05-06classactioncomplaint1123731.1.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

EPA estimated fuel economy for 2020 Explorer 2.3L 2WD is best in class at 24 mpg. But real world testing shows a different picture. In Motor Trend's test loop (5 x 25 mi.), Explorer 2WD got 18.9 mpg. This was worse than Pilot (21.2 mpg), Traverse (19.7), Telluride (19.7), and Palisade (19.2). All except Traverse had AWD.

 

It's probably best that Ford not tout Explorer's fuel economy in its marketing. Last year, Ford got hit with a $1.2 billion lawsuit regarding alleged misstatement of fuel economy for 2019 Ranger and F-150. https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/ford-ranger/2019-05-06classactioncomplaint1123731.1.pdf

 

Real-world doesn't matter, Ford can state what shows up with the EPA test.  That bogus lawsuit means nothing...as long as Ford is not cheating the test and they put what the test shows on the sticker, they're covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always surprised when fuel economy numbers are down in the low 20s range that some people put that near the top of the decision on what vehicle to buy. When I bought my Expedition and Navigators I couldn't care less about the MPG ratings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

EPA estimated fuel economy for 2020 Explorer 2.3L 2WD is best in class at 24 mpg. But real world testing shows a different picture. In Motor Trend's test loop (5 x 25 mi.), Explorer 2WD got 18.9 mpg. This was worse than Pilot (21.2 mpg), Traverse (19.7), Telluride (19.7), and Palisade (19.2). All except Traverse had AWD.

 

 

It used to be the case that not only Ford does poor in real-world testing, but also poor in the official EPA rating. Ford having the best in fuel economy in the segment even on paper is something I would've never thought. Improving real-world fuel economy is certainly something to work on, but this is a step in the right direction.

 

My guess for that low numbers on the M/T test is that Explorer is the only one with a 4-cylinder turbo while other guys got the bigger-displacement V6 which should be a lot more robust against the all the maneuvers that those journalists are doing. I am more interested in how they managed to pull off only 18.9mpg unless they were idling more than half of the time because the Explorer does get at least 20mpg even on AWD based on the customer quality data that I'm getting and the fuelly website seems to repeat that (http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/explorer/2020?engineconfig_id=34&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I've found is that ecoboost engines tend to have a wider range of "real world" mpg based on how they're driven.   Whereas a NA V6 might range from 18-22 the 2.3LEB might range from 16-24 depending on how it's driven.  Drive it hard and don't coast and don't use auto stop start and you might be at 16.   Drive it easy, coast a lot, keep the speed down and use auto stop/start and you can get 24.  With my 2018 F150 3.5Leb I can easily meet or exceed the EPA ratings.

 

Don't forget the EPA ratings are done with pure gasoline instead of E-10 (which I think is stupid because it's hard to find E-0 and it's way more expensive).   That's probably 1 mpg right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, akirby said:

Don't forget the EPA ratings are done with pure gasoline instead of E-10 (which I think is stupid because it's hard to find E-0 and it's way more expensive).  

 

Yes sir, but EPA fuel economy ratings are adjusted down to account for that. See item #5 in attached FAQ from EPA.

 

P100IENB.pdf

Edited by rperez817

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Black Label said:

I'm always surprised when fuel economy numbers are down in the low 20s range that some people put that near the top of the decision on what vehicle to buy. 

 

MPG is not a linear measure of fuel consumed. That means a 1 MPG increase with starting point of 20 MPG has a much greater impact on fuel expenditures than a 1 MPG increase from 35 MPG starting point. So consumers shopping for gasoline powered midsize and fullsize SUVs that have MPG ratings in the low 20s or below are being very logical when they pay attention to 1-2 MPG differences among models. 

mpggraph.gif 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

MPG is not a linear measure of fuel consumed. That means a 1 MPG increase with starting point of 20 MPG has a much greater impact on fuel expenditures than a 1 MPG increase from 35 MPG starting point. So consumers shopping for gasoline powered midsize and fullsize SUVs that have MPG ratings in the low 20s or below are being very logical when they pay attention to 1-2 MPG differences among models. 

mpggraph.gif 

I guess I'm illogical in my car buying then. I go for what looks good and drives the best IMO. I'm sort of being tongue in cheek here. I just don't put that much stock into fuel cost when I'm already spending tens of thousands of dollars. 

 

Guessing you may be from the FW area of Texas from the 817. I grew up there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Yes sir, but EPA fuel economy ratings are adjusted down to account for that. See item #5 in attached FAQ from EPA.

 

P100IENB.pdf

 

It does try to account for E10, but do note that E10 won't be directly used until 'later in this decade' and it is simply a correlation from the E0 tests.

I am willing to bet not all OEM's have the same degree of degradation from E0 to E10, and a good chance that Ford has a particularly bad degradation.

Not only it's about between E0 vs. E10, but it's also using 98 RON (~93 AKI) instead of 91 RON (the 87 AKI that I'm sure almost every Ford customer pumps) which has its own correlation that EPA tries to account for, but Ford has likely optimized for 98 RON and doesn't care whatever happens with 91 RON. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Black Label said:

Guessing you may be from the FW area of Texas from the 817. I grew up there. 

 

Yes sir Black Label, you are absolutely correct about the 817. :) I'm in SW Fort Worth, Candleridge neighborhood a few miles south of Hulen Mall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Yes sir Black Label, you are absolutely correct about the 817. :) I'm in SW Fort Worth, Candleridge neighborhood a few miles south of Hulen Mall.

I grew up on Del Prado in Wedgewood! Used to ride my bike to French Lake. Small world. 🍻

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

Yes sir, but EPA fuel economy ratings are adjusted down to account for that. See item #5 in attached FAQ from EPA.

 

P100IENB.pdf


Nice try, but at say they reduce by 10% to account for a number of driving conditions not just E-10.  That may not be enough.  And apparently the EPA agrees since they’re planning on switching later this decade.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Black Label said:

I grew up on Del Prado in Wedgewood! Used to ride my bike to French Lake. Small world. 🍻

 

Wow, that is so cool Black Label sir! Your old neighborhood is on the other side of Candleridge Park from where my family and I reside, within a short walking or bicycling distance. Both my sons attended Southwest High School, just down Altamesa Blvd. from where you grew up. Small world indeed! 😎

Edited by rperez817

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, akirby said:


Nice try, but at say they reduce by 10% to account for a number of driving conditions not just E-10.  That may not be enough.  And apparently the EPA agrees since they’re planning on switching later this decade.

 

Good points akirby sir, I agree that the adjustment may not be enough. The FAQ is from 2014 or 2015. I wonder if the EPA finally switched to using E10 for their testing by now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rperez817 said:

 

Wow, that is so cool Black Label sir! Your old neighborhood is on the other side of Candleridge Park from where my family and I reside, within a short walking or bicycling distance. Both my sons attended Southwest High School, just down Altamesa Blvd. from where you grew up. Small world indeed! 😎

Yep, I went to JT Stevens, Wedgewood, SHS for 9th grade. PHS 10th-12th after we moved. Know the area extremely well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×