Ford CEO Jim Farley Suggests Ford Explorer EREV On The Table

[jpd80]

23 hours ago, twintornados said:

If Jim Farley is talking EREV for Explorer, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that testing mules are already running around and no one has seen them....

I was thinking about that but the problem with CD6 Lincoln Aviator Grand Touring is that the PHEV battery takes up the space where the gas tank sits. Maybe they can add an ICE to T3 BEV (F150/Expedition) and build a couple of SUV bodies for Explorer and Expedition 

 

Ford is definitely up to something 

Edited August 7 by jpd80

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

I was thinking about that but the problem with CD6 Lincoln Aviator Grand Touring is that the PHEV battery takes up the space where the gas tank sits. Maybe they can add an ICE to T3 BEV (F150/Expedition) and build a couple of SUV bodies for Explorer and Expedition 

 

Nope, the fuel tanks are the same size no matter what powertrain is in it-the Lincoln site states 20 gallons and when you look up the PHEV powertrain, the gas tank is one side of the drive shaft and the battery on the other side. 

[rmc523]

13 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

You can do a CD6 Explorer with 2 liter EB and electric motor just as easily. Why switch to another platform and start over? The Chicago plant is setup to build CD6 not C2. Ford only has 1 C2 plant in North America and it is already quite busy with Bronco Sport and Maverick and wouldn't have room to handle 250K Explorer volume. 

 

Because it's Ford and they like to make decisions that don't make sense.....

 

9 hours ago, ExplorerDude said:

The Explorer and Aviator’s futures are in a state of flux right now. The plan has changed multiple times.

 

Originally, the next gen Explorer was to be a new top hat on CD6. That plan was canned in 2022. Then we had the Oakville EVs which were supposed to be partial replacements for the Explorer and Aviator. That plan was obviously squashed in 2024.

 

The current Explorer and Aviator’s lives have been extended to MY30 with another supposed refresh for MY28 before then.

 

The final decision on the next Explorer and Aviator is to be made by the end of the year. So it could stay on CD6 or go to another platform. The EREV is a strong possibility but it will have a Hybrid powertrain standard with the EREV as a secondary powertrain.

 

Interesting.  Sounds about right for Ford to cancel updates and then leave a product way too long on the market without a redesign.  Hopefully the 28 is a thorough one, though if it's only 2 years, it'll probably be like the last gen where they add an extra chrome piece and call it a "refresh".

 

A new CD6 top hat makes most sense to me for now, which keeps investment costs down until they figure out what to do longer term.  That can't be developed in 3-ish years?

Edited August 7 by rmc523

[jpd80]

8 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Nope, the fuel tanks are the same size no matter what powertrain is in it-the Lincoln site states 20 gallons and when you look up the PHEV powertrain, the gas tank is one side of the drive shaft and the battery on the other side. 

Good point and yeah, I sad that wrong, short handing my responses is an issue of mine….

CD6 PHEV battery looks like it fills the spare tyre void but yes, it doesn’t affect fuel capacity, I saw Somme of the Ford cut away frame pictures and it shows the battery in the rear compartment floor, I assumed the rest.

 

The point I was making is that finding enough space for a 100 mile EV range battery in the current CD6 won’t fly with out a major rework. Perhaps Ford has already decided to modify T3 with a range extender instead?

[Rick73]

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Good point and yeah, I sad that wrong, short handing my responses is an issue of mine….

CD6 PHEV battery looks like it fills the spare tyre void but yes, it doesn’t affect fuel capacity, I saw Somme of the Ford cut away frame pictures and it shows the battery in the rear compartment floor, I assumed the rest.

 

The point I was making is that finding enough space for a 100 mile EV range battery in the current CD6 won’t fly with out a major rework. Perhaps Ford has already decided to modify T3 with a range extender instead?

For reference only, pictures below show how Stellantis plans to use same basic chassis for ICE, BEV and EREV.

 

 

 

[Andrew L]

I wonder if an Explorer Sport Trac would help at all it might eat into Ranger sales but I am thinking more of a light duty truck similar to Maverick, just something to help CD6 along.

 

Would something like a fast back/hatch Aviator help at all?  I hate to even suggest such a thing since I hated the BMW Grand Touring / X Coupes but they seem to sell a decent amount Mercedes has something similar too.

 

 

[jpd80]

16 minutes ago, Andrew L said:

I wonder if an Explorer Sport Trac would help at all it might eat into Ranger sales but I am thinking more of a light duty truck similar to Maverick, just something to help CD6 along.

 

Would something like a fast back/hatch Aviator help at all?  I hate to even suggest such a thing since I hated the BMW Grand Touring / X Coupes but they seem to sell a decent amount Mercedes has something similar too.

When you think about it, a modern Explorer Sport Track would still be bigger and wider Thant the latest Ranger,

more like a lighter option to F150 crew cab….is that something Ford would really want to do though?

 

There’s a lot of options open with using C2, the current Equator and Equator Sport are both 76” wide 

and probably cover the Edge and a possible future Explorer replacement if Ford was ever inclined to do so.

[jpd80]

On 8/7/2025 at 4:29 AM, bzcat said:

 

I highly doubt that. The whole point of CD6 was to piggy back off F-Series and T6 longitude engine and drivetrain package combos. Switching to C2 will require massive engineering to make sure C2 can handle V6 engine and different transmission and so forth. And the investment for these drivetrain on C2 Explorer cannot be shared with other smaller C2 vehicles because they don't need it so it defeats the whole point.

CD6 was an expensive platform which is why nothing other than RWD Edge got past early engineering

review. Ford reverting to C2 and eliminating CD4 was all about less weight and removing V6 engineering.

 

If Ford was looking at North American C2 Equator and Equator Sport, it would want to be damn sure that

is what enough buyers want but adding PHEV or even EREV might be much easier over fiddling with CD6

it just depends how the financing and supplier network is situated…

 

If C2 used for EREV, that would probably use existing transverse 2.0 EB range extender with hybrid trans

coupled with rear electric motor  and a big battery under the floor. Makes sense for hybrids, PHEV and

EREV as the engineering is mostly done and very efficiency space wise..

 

On 8/7/2025 at 4:29 AM, bzcat said:

I see Mustang and Explorer continuing on their existing path of leveraging F-Series and T6 powertrain developments. All the investments are for the trucks and Explorer and Mustang hangs on for free.

Yes and maintaining them has  the weight of established and mature engineering and supplier network

being unchanged. So is Ford in a mood to change things or not waste time and money on mucking with

Explorer and Aviator after all the struggle to get RWD/AWD platform back?

 

The argument can go either way and I guess it’s what does Ford really want to do with future vehicles

and is it even worth switching to C2 to do PHEVs and EREVs or is there a less costly way to do this?

An does Ford have bigger fish to fry in other areas like CE1 roll out and setting up next three years 

for F150, Lightnings and hybrid versions…

Edited August 8 by jpd80

[Trader 10]

4 hours ago, jpd80 said:

CD6 was an expensive platform which is why nothing other than RWD Edge got past early engineering

review. Ford reverting to C2 and eliminating CD4 was all about less weight and removing V6 engineering.

 

If Ford was looking at North American C2 Equator and Equator Sport, it would want to be damn sure that

is what enough buyers want but adding PHEV or even EREV might be much easier over fiddling with CD6

it just depends how the financing and supplier network is situated…

 

If C2 used for EREV, that would probably use existing transverse 2.0 EB range extender with hybrid trans

coupled with rear electric motor  and a big battery under the floor. Makes sense for hybrids, PHEV and

EREV as the engineering is mostly done and very efficiency space wise..

 

Yes and maintaining them has  the weight of established and mature engineering and supplier network

being unchanged. So is Ford in a mood to change things or not waste time and money on mucking with

Explorer and Aviator after all the struggle to get RWD/AWD platform back?

 

The argument can go either way and I guess it’s what does Ford really want to do with future vehicles

and is it even worth switching to C2 to do PHEVs and EREVs or is there a less costly way to do this?

An does Ford have bigger fish to fry in other areas like CE1 roll out and setting up next three years 

for F150, Lightnings and hybrid versions…

According to Borg, Ford will introduce a C2 based 3 row E-REV and the Super Duty E-REV before the CE1 truck goes on sale. We’ve know for some time about the upcoming SD E-REV but this is the first time I’ve heard mention of a C2 E-REV. Maybe we’ll get some news re E-REV vehicles Monday?

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, Trader 10 said:

According to Borg, Ford will introduce a C2 based 3 row E-REV and the Super Duty E-REV before the CE1 truck goes on sale. We’ve know for some time about the upcoming SD E-REV but this is the first time I’ve heard mention of a C2 E-REV. Maybe we’ll get some news re E-REV vehicles Monday?

Technically,

an EREV can have a battery size anywhere between 18 and 45 KwHr. The Chinese Ford Equator PHEV

just so happens to have an 18.4 KwHr battery so could be regarded as an EREV……

 

If true, it could be viable as Ford China has paid for development of Equator and Equator Sport,

both vehicles would transplant well to North America but some regionalisation would be required.

Edited August 9 by jpd80

[jpd80]

What blew my mind is that Ford Equator is supposed to be based on a regionalised version of C2

but the PHEV version has a frame. Man, the flexibility possible with mixing and matching modules

and electronics is fantastic. Some of the old perceived limitations of vehicles are now  being

challenged by modern thinking…

 

I’ve been hoping for this for a while but would need a major paradigm shift,

Could Equator and Equator Sport be rebranded as Explorer and Explorer Sport?

As mentioned earlier Equator and SWB Equator sport are both 76” wide which is similar to Edge

and a touch narrower than CD6  Explorer (78.9”) which seems closer to F150/Expedition width of 79.9”.

It is possible that a future repositioning of Explorer would improve/ even out product spacing and perhaps

benefit and improve sales of 2-row, 3- row mid sizes vs Expedition full……..

 

Edited August 9 by jpd80

[Texasota]

16 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Technically,

an EREV can have a battery size anywhere between 18 and 45 KwHr. The Chinese Ford Equator PHEV

just so happens to have an 18.4 KwHr battery so could be regarded as an EREV……

This is an interesting point. What makes an EREV an EREV vs a PHEV? I've had it in my mind that an EREV is distinguished by a larger battery pack, the absence of a hybrid transmission and the presence of a small ICE coupled with a generator. Maybe these lines will become more blurred with future models?

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, Texasota said:

This is an interesting point. What makes an EREV an EREV vs a PHEV? I've had it in my mind that an EREV is distinguished by a larger battery pack, the absence of a hybrid transmission and the presence of a small ICE coupled with a generator. Maybe these lines will become more blurred with future models?

It’s generally about a battery size that gives at least 100km /60 miles of electric range

but under US or is it Californian regs (?), I think the charge sustain is not permitted,

an EREV must slowly discharge the battery when the ICE is engaged…

 

So when you look at the BYD Shark 6, the ICE does indeed drive the generator but there’s still a mechanical

drive available to the front wheels above 70 kph, it’s more efficient to that than use the series hybrid  with

ICE- generator-drive motor. The old GM Volt used to do similar because of similar reasons.

 

[rmc523]

On 8/8/2025 at 6:15 PM, Andrew L said:

I wonder if an Explorer Sport Trac would help at all it might eat into Ranger sales but I am thinking more of a light duty truck similar to Maverick, just something to help CD6 along.

 

Would something like a fast back/hatch Aviator help at all?  I hate to even suggest such a thing since I hated the BMW Grand Touring / X Coupes but they seem to sell a decent amount Mercedes has something similar too.

 

 

no.  Explorer Sport Trac came around when Ranger was still small, so Ford had no midsize offering between it and F-150.

 

now we already have Maverick, Ranger and F-150+

there’s no need to add another model like Sport Trac in there that won’t be as useful when you already have an offering.

If they weren’t even able to make a case for a Bronco truck, which would be far more unique, a Sport Trac has no chance.

[morgan20]

15 hours ago, Texasota said:

What makes an EREV an EREV vs a PHEV?

 

11 hours ago, jpd80 said:

is it Californian regs (?), I think the charge sustain is not permitted, an EREV must slowly discharge the battery when the ICE is engaged…

 

Yea, them Californians came up with regs to distinguish PHEV from EREV. The latter, which they call BEVx or range-extended battery electric vehicle, has these requirements:

• The vehicle must have a rated all-electric range of at least 75 miles (higher than the 50 miles required of a zero-emission vehicle);
• The auxiliary power unit, e.g., ICE part of the powertrain, must provide range less than, or at most equal to, that battery range;
• The APU must not be capable of switching on until the battery charge has been depleted;
• The vehicle must meet “super ultra low emission vehicle” (SULEV) requirements; and
• The APU and all associated fuel systems must comply with zero evaporative emissions requirements.

[Texasota]

2 hours ago, morgan20 said:

 

 

Yea, them Californians came up with regs to distinguish PHEV from EREV. The latter, which they call BEVx or range-extended battery electric vehicle, has these requirements:

• The vehicle must have a rated all-electric range of at least 75 miles (higher than the 50 miles required of a zero-emission vehicle);
• The auxiliary power unit, e.g., ICE part of the powertrain, must provide range less than, or at most equal to, that battery range;
• The APU must not be capable of switching on until the battery charge has been depleted;
• The vehicle must meet “super ultra low emission vehicle” (SULEV) requirements; and
• The APU and all associated fuel systems must comply with zero evaporative emissions requirements.

Those regulations, in my opinion, make an EREV a bizarre vehicle. Seems they are intended to regulate EREVs out of existence.

 

If we take a hypothetical EREV with a battery capable of a 200 mile range, then the APU most also be limited to a 200 mile range which implies the gas tank cannot exceed approximately 6 gallons in size. In addition, that EREV is severely compromised (assuming a small ICE) given that it cannot engage until the battery is fully depleted. 
 

Does this mean that a Dodge Ramcharger cannot be sold in California or does it mean that it cannot be marketed as a EREV?

[akirby]

5 hours ago, rmc523 said:

no.  Explorer Sport Trac came around when Ranger was still small, so Ford had no midsize offering between it and F-150.

 

now we already have Maverick, Ranger and F-150+

there’s no need to add another model like Sport Trac in there that won’t be as useful when you already have an offering.

If they weren’t even able to make a case for a Bronco truck, which would be far more unique, a Sport Trac has no chance.

Yep.  Ranger crew cab IS the modern sport Trac.

[akirby]

55 minutes ago, Texasota said:

Those regulations, in my opinion, make an EREV a bizarre vehicle. Seems they are intended to regulate EREVs out of existence.

 

If we take a hypothetical EREV with a battery capable of a 200 mile range, then the APU most also be limited to a 200 mile range which implies the gas tank cannot exceed approximately 6 gallons in size. In addition, that EREV is severely compromised (assuming a small ICE) given that it cannot engage until the battery is fully depleted. 
 

Does this mean that a Dodge Ramcharger cannot be sold in California or does it mean that it cannot be marketed as a EREV?

Just remember this is the state trying to ban ICE altogether so not surprising they want to hamstring EREVs as much as possible,

[Rick73]

21 hours ago, Texasota said:

This is an interesting point. What makes an EREV an EREV vs a PHEV? I've had it in my mind that an EREV is distinguished by a larger battery pack, the absence of a hybrid transmission and the presence of a small ICE coupled with a generator. Maybe these lines will become more blurred with future models?

California questionable regulations aside, the most common differentiation I keep seeing between PHEV and EREV is that in an Extended Range EV the engine doesn’t connect to driven wheels mechanically in any way.  The engine only powers a generator which then charges battery bank.  Other variables like battery size, engine power, fuel tank capacity, etc. just add an infinite combination of possibilities that shouldn’t preclude a vehicle from technically being an EREV.  Below comparison shows power flow for the four most common arrangements: BEV, EREV, PHEV, and HEV.  Obviously ICE is not covered.

 

It’s interesting that when an EREV has a clutch that connects engine to driven wheels pseudo-directly (with use of gear reduction), it technically becomes a PHEV by definition below.  Using that definition, PHEV makes more sense to me since I believe EREV should have a clutch to improve efficiency once cruising speed is reached, otherwise highway fuel consumption will be unnecessarily high.

 

 

[bzcat]

6 hours ago, morgan20 said:

 

 

Yea, them Californians came up with regs to distinguish PHEV from EREV. The latter, which they call BEVx or range-extended battery electric vehicle, has these requirements:

• The vehicle must have a rated all-electric range of at least 75 miles (higher than the 50 miles required of a zero-emission vehicle);
• The auxiliary power unit, e.g., ICE part of the powertrain, must provide range less than, or at most equal to, that battery range;
• The APU must not be capable of switching on until the battery charge has been depleted;
• The vehicle must meet “super ultra low emission vehicle” (SULEV) requirements; and
• The APU and all associated fuel systems must comply with zero evaporative emissions requirements.

 

The regulation is designed to prohibit company from building inefficient EREV. It makes a lot of sense if you assume EREV buyers could use it like an ICE car and never plug it in. It will result in higher CO2 emission than a normal ICE.

 

 

[Texasota]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

It’s interesting that when an EREV has a clutch that connects engine to driven wheels pseudo-directly (with use of gear reduction), it technically becomes a PHEV by definition below.  Using that definition, PHEV makes more sense to me since I believe EREV should have a clutch to improve efficiency once cruising speed is reached, otherwise highway fuel consumption will be unnecessarily high.

 

One could argue that when a clutch with gear reduction is added you now have a primitive single speed transmission that can be engaged only within a narrow speed/torque range. Conventional PHEV for me please. 

Edited August 10 by Texasota

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

One could argue that when a clutch with gear reduction is added you now have a primitive single speed transmission that can be engaged only within a narrow speed/torque range. Conventional PHEV for me please. 

It’s not primitive but rather the latest IMO. 😀. As applied to PHEVs or EREVs I see it as quite advanced.  Transmissions are essentially becoming obsolete as we see with practically all BEVs because electric motors can remain relative efficient throughout the normal driving range of speeds.  There are a few exceptions like very high performance electric vehicles that utilize 2-speed gearboxes so they can have “slightly” higher acceleration at lower speeds and also have higher efficiency at higher speeds.  Some existing high-end BEVs therefore use a 2-speed gearbox but it adds weight and costs, something budget-minded BEVs for the masses can do without.

 

Anyway, I digress a bit by setting the stage (background) from the electric motor side of things.  In case of an EREV with a clutch to connect engine to wheels, the main if not only reason for having a clutch is to improve powertrain efficiency and thus save fuel at near-steady higher speeds; like highway cruising.  We must assume that the electric drive motor(s) already can produce all the necessary power and torque a driver needs (just like BEVs that have excess power can already provide).  Since modern gas engines can be relatively efficient over a wide RPM range of at least 1,500 to 3,000 RPM, a single direct drive corresponding to vehicle speeds of roughly 40 to 80 MPH can be quite effective without the complexities of multi-speed gearboxes.  Below a threshold of something like roughly 40 MPH the system can default to operating in BEV mode with engine powering only the generator.

 

I should note that the Honda hybrid powertrain specifications show the engine connects directly to the front wheels through two separate gear ratios.  That would be a nice feature to include if it doesn’t add much weight, complexity, or costs; particularly for vehicles that tow occasionally.

[Texasota]

11 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Since modern gas engines can be relatively efficient over a wide RPM range of at least 1,500 to 3,000 RPM, a single direct drive corresponding to vehicle speeds of roughly 40 to 80 MPH can be quite effective without the complexities of multi-speed gearboxes.  

Agree under light load conditions but not when hauling or towing a heavy load as a Ranger PHEV would be expected to do.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, Texasota said:

Agree under light load conditions but not when hauling or towing a heavy load as a Ranger PHEV would be expected to do.

Not a problem.  Electric motors will make up required incremental power and torque.  BEV trucks can tow quite well except for range so same motors when used in EREV applications will tow just as well even if gas engine doesn’t contribute much additional power and torque.  Only major difference is that batteries will drain faster when towing, which will likely occur anyway unless engine is oversized.

[jpd80]

14 hours ago, akirby said:

Yep.  Ranger crew cab IS the modern sport Trac.

Yes and a CD6 Explorer Sport Track is probably way too close to close to F150 in size

but some will die wondering what might have been, maybe it just cannibalises SUV sales?