Jump to content

2026 Explorer Platinum loses 3.0EB option


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, redwings1914 said:

Won't be buying an Explorer or (I presume) Aviator now. a $60K+ vehicle and there is no sun/moon roof? Inexcusable. Having been raised in a Ford family my entire 35 year life, they just keep pushing me away from their current product. It's like this company is TRYING to go out of business...

 

It has a fixed glass roof, which is what many automakers are going toward, unfortunately.

 

1 hour ago, akirby said:


It still opens like a regular moonroof it’s just not as huge as the BAMR.

 

Come on man, re-read the sentence you quoted.  No it doesn't......

 

2026 Ford Explorer is losing its Panoramic Vista Roof, replacing it with the optional Panoramic Fixed Glass Roof. As a reminder, the Panoramic Vista Roof offers a moonroof component, meaning it can be partially opened.

 

the sentence you quoted is reminding you that the panoramic vista roof - which Explorer is losing (i.e. discontinued) - had the ability to open it.  The vista roof is now being replaced by a fixed glass roof option.

 

Edited by rmc523
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

It has a fixed glass roof, which is what many automakers are going toward, unfortunately.

 

 

Come on man, re-read the sentence you quoted.  No it doesn't......

 

2026 Ford Explorer is losing its Panoramic Vista Roof, replacing it with the optional Panoramic Fixed Glass Roof. As a reminder, the Panoramic Vista Roof offers a moonroof component, meaning it can be partially opened.

 

the sentence you quoted is reminding you that the panoramic vista roof - which Explorer is losing (i.e. discontinued) - had the ability to open it.  The vista roof is now being replaced by a fixed glass roof option.

 


Oh wow you’re right.  I totally misread it.  I agree that makes no sense not to have the front part open.  Very strange.  Maybe it’s a typo?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, akirby said:


Oh wow you’re right.  I totally misread it.  I agree that makes no sense not to have the front part open.  Very strange.  Maybe it’s a typo?

 

I think it's Ford just cheapening out.  They can now put a single glass piece in instead of all the mechanical hardware, channels, power, etc. needed to have an openable sunroof.  I'm guessing they won't even put a shade either (like Mach E).

 

As I said above, many other companies are doing this too, so it's not just Ford, but it sucks to have it, then take it away.

 

The only "positive" I could see from this is that perhaps they'll be able to make the opening larger since they don't have to have those mechanical parts anymore?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I used to drive with my sunroof open all the time when I was younger. Sunroof was one of the things that I must have in any car.

 

Now I occasionally tilt it open to vent out hot air while parked under the sun and rarely ever have it open while driving. Most of the time, they just produce too much noise compared to my old cars.

 

I have a theory that as cars got more aerodynamic, car companies are finding it more difficult to keep the noise of air turbulence down which is leading to consumer dissatisfaction. Basically the cars are so slippery now that air flows are sticking very close to the roof and a hole in the roof is producing too much noise. Whereas when cars were not as slipper in the old days, the air flow further above the roof so a hole doesn't cause so much disturbance. The noise is then causing consumer dissatisfaction in things like JDP survey.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure open sunroof causes a dent in the fuel economy. CAFE target is calculated using the most popular configuration so even a tiny 0.1 MPG hit is going to have significant consequences for CAFE target calculation.

 

So getting rid of open sunroof scores two positives for car companies... less noise complaints and better CAFE results. And like I said, because new car sunroofs are generally more noisy than old car with sunroofs, more people keep them closed anyway. It's an easy win from car company's perspective which is why they are all getting rid of it and offering fixed glass roof instead. 

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

43 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

I think it's Ford just cheapening out.  They can now put a single glass piece in instead of all the mechanical hardware, channels, power, etc. needed to have an openable sunroof.  I'm guessing they won't even put a shade either (like Mach E).

 

As I said above, many other companies are doing this too, so it's not just Ford, but it sucks to have it, then take it away.

 

The only "positive" I could see from this is that perhaps they'll be able to make the opening larger since they don't have to have those mechanical parts anymore?

If they don’t include a shade, I hope they at least provide the ability to tint it electronically. The Rivian’s Dynamic glass roof is cool in that you can shade the cabin in one button push without the roller shade. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, blazerdude20 said:

If they don’t include a shade, I hope they at least provide the ability to tint it electronically. The Rivian’s Dynamic glass roof is cool in that you can shade the cabin in one button push without the roller shade. 


Power Shade is included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

From the 2026 order guide

 

image.thumb.png.7d1f025652509bbb7d24cab8c880de4c.png

 

Oh, I hadn't seen the order guide.

 

That tells me it's probably the same size hole in the roof, it just doesn't open.  Probably reusing the same shade mechanism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just thought of something else, by now Ford  was supposed to have  the GE2 BEV 3- Row Utility.

I have to imagine that the continued delaying over years and silent cancellation have meant many

changes and mis steps to what is done with Explorer, it’s refreshes and high series options.

 

Was Ford caught economising Explorer, changing long run supplier contracts because of the 

3- row BEV that’s now been cancelled?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, twintornados said:

Sadly, for Explorer (and Aviator) it sits on an orphaned chassis.....This eras Panther chassis all over again.

I don’t know that is entirely true anymore. With the pull back on EV’s, I think there is development potential for Ford with this platform to underpin next generation Explorer and maybe midsize crossover. Ford certainly isn’t going to pay develop another non-EV platform. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, blazerdude20 said:

I don’t know that is entirely true anymore. With the pull back on EV’s, I think there is development potential for Ford with this platform to underpin next generation Explorer and maybe midsize crossover. Ford certainly isn’t going to pay develop another non-EV platform. 


Agreed.  It would be foolish to throw it away now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2025 at 11:35 AM, bzcat said:

 

I have only seen 2 Explorer Platinum in the wild so it is not a popular choice to begin with and having two engine choices for such a low volume trim didn't make sense. However, I would have kept the 3.0 and nuked the 2.3. Force the upsell for people who wanted the kitchen sink edition.

 

 


Thats 2 more than I’ve seen, and I live in the land of a-plan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2025 at 6:17 PM, jpd80 said:

Was Ford caught economising Explorer, changing long run supplier contracts because of the 

3- row BEV that’s now been cancelled?

 

Uh it depends? The Explorer EOL isn't till middle of next decade and well they do sell a decent amount of PIUs to keep Chicago busy. 

 

The other thing is that apparently it is going to get another major update in a few years, so it might be short term thing (36 months or so) why some options might be getting dropped because of that major refresh that is coming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Sometimes it has a to be spelled out because a lot of folks still don’t understand this “Ford logic”

progressively eliminating the V6 from Explorer, then call it a commodity vehicle like the old Crown Vic.

 

The V6 is being driven by CAFE IMO. But who knows how that is gonna work out.

 

Plus wasn't their rumors of the Explorer getting an EREV setup? I'm wondering if that is why the Bronco and Ranger haven't been marked to get PHEVs in the next 2-3 years-they might all share a EREV setup instead? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2025 at 12:28 PM, rmc523 said:

 

Oh, I hadn't seen the order guide.

 

That tells me it's probably the same size hole in the roof, it just doesn't open.  Probably reusing the same shade mechanism.


Bingo!  So now you are just getting a cheap ass piece of glass in the pano’s place since it’s probable they are using the same shade setup.  
 

So it’s reasonable to assume it’s Ford “cheapening out” as you had suggested above. 


Brilliant move to improve sales!  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, blazerdude20 said:

I don’t know that is entirely true anymore. With the pull back on EV’s, I think there is development potential for Ford with this platform to underpin next generation Explorer and maybe midsize crossover. Ford certainly isn’t going to pay develop another non-EV platform. 

 

(cough-cough) C2 Global (cough-cough) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, tbone said:


Bingo!  So now you are just getting a cheap ass piece of glass in the pano’s place since it’s probable they are using the same shade setup.  
 

So it’s reasonable to assume it’s Ford “cheapening out” as you had suggested above. 


Brilliant move to improve sales!  


In fairness to Ford, what if they are “cheapening out” or decontenting in order to avoid having to raise prices, or raise prices even more?  In a way I like the idea of evaluating all features and deciding if the added cost is worth it to buyers, who will undoubtedly end up paying for it one way or the other IMO.

 

I’ve only had one car that came with a moonroof, a Ford, and probably didn’t open it more than one or two times a year on average, so I may be slightly biased in that it did not add much value to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say, with my MKZ, it was hard to find one fully loaded without the sliding/pano roof (have a simple moonroof instead), they just didn't age well and becomes a reliability nightmare years after.  A friends Pano Roof in her '16 Edge hasn't opened in 5 years...last time she did you could tell it wouldn't close back up so we just know now to open it.  Could be done not just for cheapening out, but maybe not enough people actually use it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

The V6 is being driven by CAFE IMO. But who knows how that is gonna work out.


Are CAFE fines not repealed?  If so, and fuel economy is essentially left up to manufacturers (and buyers) on a voluntary basis, we can make a safe bet based on current fuel prices.  It does not only affect engines but also footprint rules that influence vehicle designs, transmissions, electrification, etc.  We will have to see how much manufacturers actually change given it could all be reversed in a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Rick73 said:


In fairness to Ford, what if they are “cheapening out” or decontenting in order to avoid having to raise prices, or raise prices even more?  In a way I like the idea of evaluating all features and deciding if the added cost is worth it to buyers, who will undoubtedly end up paying for it one way or the other IMO.

 

I’ve only had one car that came with a moonroof, a Ford, and probably didn’t open it more than one or two times a year on average, so I may be slightly biased in that it did not add much value to me. 


Is Ford going to lower the price now that it’s a fixed piece of glass?  They used to use the pano as a selling point, and it is one of the best on the market.  But what if they don’t lower the price?  What kind of selling point is that?  Pay more get less?   The pano is an option.  If you want a lower price point reduce the number of vehicles you install it on or give people all three options. If the take rate suggest only 10% or less opt for the pano over time, then I get it. But to eliminate a great feature that people were clearly paying for makes no sense to me. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Rick73 said:


Are CAFE fines not repealed?  If so, and fuel economy is essentially left up to manufacturers (and buyers) on a voluntary basis, we can make a safe bet based on current fuel prices.  It does not only affect engines but also footprint rules that influence vehicle designs, transmissions, electrification, etc.  We will have to see how much manufacturers actually change given it could all be reversed in a few years.

 

Apparently they are now repealed

 

https://reason.com/2025/07/02/under-the-big-beautiful-bill-car-companies-wont-be-fined-for-failing-to-hit-arbitrary-fuel-efficiency-goals/

 

The issue is long term-what happens during the next administration if leadership changes. I think the prudent course is just keep what your doing mid term so your not caught with your pants down when things change

  • 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...