akirby Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 The wording he used was "will be", that doesn't sound like a guess to me. I understand that's what he says but until I see or hear it from more than one source I'm not taking it as gospel. Why do other reporters who got the same preview only say 'car-based' and don't mention Volvo at all? It's possible he has inside info and he's right but I've heard hints otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I understand that's what he says but until I see or hear it from more than one source I'm not taking it as gospel. Why do other reporters who got the same preview only say 'car-based' and don't mention Volvo at all? It's possible he has inside info and he's right but I've heard hints otherwise. Simple, Ford has already been using Volvo platforms, do you really think the Wal-Mart of car companies is going to build a Ford on a Land Rover chassis??? No way in hell, while the LR3 is probably the only suitable replacement for the Explorer, it will never happen. Everybody that was at the showroom of the future has said this, and this "journalist" probably has more insider info than you do. So yea, I believe him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wish4newstang Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 here's a scary thought...if the explorer becomes car based, does that mean the sport trac will become a ridgeline??? :eek5: im thinking ranchero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfan Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 What a dumb move. What is to differentiate this new Explorer from the Fairlane or even the Edge? The Explorer is soon to join the Taurus/Sable and Ranger as vehichles where Ford dropped the ball. I am sure that Jeep will be more than happy to sell more Grand Cherokees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 What a dumb move. What is to differentiate this new Explorer from the Fairlane or even the Edge? The Explorer is soon to join the Taurus/Sable and Ranger as vehichles where Ford dropped the ball. I am sure that Jeep will be more than happy to sell more Grand Cherokees. Except that the Grand Cherokee became a unibody in 1992, the year it debuted. Don't go away mad, just go away. Unibody works for other trucks, and ignorant consumers don't even know the difference 95% of the time, and don't care 99.9 percent of the time. Roughly .00014 percent of the time a consumer wants BOF, doesn't know why, get's on an internet board and spouts off about another BOF vehicle, but proves only his own gross misunderstanding. Now, if they re-design it unibody, and give it MORE tow capacity with a nice (think: LR) deisel engine, that would be something, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 A Ford insider over on Edmunds said this about the new explorer: It's ironic how the media reported that the Explorer would be car-based, everyone perceived it to be D3 based. Has anyone Intercepted the idea that the next Explorer could be a RWD offspring of something else? I mean, the Freestyle was/is an offspring of the 500. Get it? Intercepted? If this is true then I think that makes the Interceptor a done deal for production - only question is when. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Get it? Intercepted? If this is true then I think that makes the Interceptor a done deal for production - only question is when. LOL Biker was right! http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...amp;hl=explorer :P Plus this would solve what will happen with LAP..they start building Interceptors, MKRs, Explorers and possibily Mustangs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehaase Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Blue II may have hinted at this also: http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...mp;#entry127231 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfan Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Except that the Grand Cherokee became a unibody in 1992, the year it debuted. Don't go away mad, just go away.Unibody works for other trucks, and ignorant consumers don't even know the difference 95% of the time, and don't care 99.9 percent of the time. Roughly .00014 percent of the time a consumer wants BOF, doesn't know why, get's on an internet board and spouts off about another BOF vehicle, but proves only his own gross misunderstanding. Now, if they re-design it unibody, and give it MORE tow capacity with a nice (think: LR) deisel engine, that would be something, in my opinion. I was not concerned with BOF or unibody, I was concerned with drivelines. The D3 is front-wheel-drive oriented, while the Grand Cherokee is rear-wheel-drive oriented. I would imagine if the next explorer is built off the D3, it would come with front-wheel-drive standard. I feel a real truck should be rear-wheel-drive for towing and handling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 I was not concerned with BOF or unibody, I was concerned with drivelines. The D3 is front-wheel-drive oriented, while the Grand Cherokee is rear-wheel-drive oriented. I would imagine if the next explorer is built off the D3, it would come with front-wheel-drive standard. I feel a real truck should be rear-wheel-drive for towing and handling. +1 .. a FWD Explorer will be a death sentence for the marque. Also, Ford executives have stated publically, I believe (1H'06) that the Explorer was being re-positioned as more off-road capable, which certainly would not jive with FWD <lol>. And what about the Bronco '05 concept -- how long can Ford leave that segment so thoroughly abandoned (Explorer does not address, imo)? I have no problem with unibody except that they just don't last as long if you're like me if you keep a 4x4 for 20 years ungaraged in the northeast <lol> (there are a lot of '70s F-series out there being used every day -- the venerable '70s F250 "high-riders" made Ford's light-truck reputation!) but the public in general doesn't seem to care about BOF/unibody all that much. I'd love to see a serious [unibdy?] 4x4 'Bronco' from Ford again.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointy Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 this is not a tech statement, y'all got that one covered very well, but just a thought and/or a comment: After the Firestone fiasco, why didn't they just change the name of the Explorer to something else to get the heat off of that beautiful vehicle? They could have easily because the next generation wasn't even launched yet. The '06 is a beautiful piece of metal and it got short changed because of the affiliation with the fiasco and of course, gas prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 this is not a tech statement, y'all got that one covered very well, but just a thought and/or a comment: After the Firestone fiasco, why didn't they just change the name of the Explorer to something else to get the heat off of that beautiful vehicle? They could have easily because the next generation wasn't even launched yet. The '06 is a beautiful piece of metal and it got short changed because of the affiliation with the fiasco and of course, gas prices. Consumers are dumb, but not that dumb. They would have seen the new Not-Explorer and said "Hey, they just renamed the Explorer" anyway. I believe the Explorer name has enough cachet to overcome the Firestone debacle. And while sales are certainly down, they are anything but non-existent. It's certainly carrying enough volume to justify its continued production, in whatever form it takes in the future, BOF or unit body. The only problem facing the Explorer is keeping it in a plant that can run enough vehicles to remain profitable. The market is a lot more segmented than it used to be, but ~200K Explorers a year is still VERY significant and amongst the leaders in the segment, despite the downfall in sales from its peak. As for the '06 being shortchanged by its past, I completely disagree. It got shortchanged by the designers who didn't do NEARLY enough to tell customers "hey, this baby is new." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 I don't need the extra size, or the poor fuel mileage. I need a seven passenger vehicle capable of towing approx. 6700 lbs. My Explorer does it perfectly, and the V8/5 speed gives me 18mpg. The Expedition is too big, and the 5.4, to me, is nothing but a boat anchor. I say keep it, it is a fabulous vehicle and ford needs to retain at least one midsize body on frame towing vehicle that is REAR WHEEL DRIVE, the Explorer has an amazing track record regarding dependebility and loyalty, where Ford has missed the boat is on WAY too conservitive styling and a powertrain which is purely adequate, right now the car is just WAY too mainstream blah! basically...BORING! It has become the Crown Victoria of SUV's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Speaking of competition, the Pathfinder will receive a 317HP 5.6L V8 from the Titan... LINK-Tcc.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 As the hurricane replaces the MODs in the lineup, I think that people will be quite satisfied with what ends up in the Explorer if it stays BOF. No one will like it as a unibody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 As the hurricane replaces the MODs in the lineup, I think that people will be quite satisfied with what ends up in the Explorer if it stays BOF. No one will like it as a unibody. Again, I doubt most people would even NOTICE if it was unit body or body-on-frame. Ask the average Explorer buyer for their top 10 reasons they bought it. I doubt "body-on-frame" would make anybody's list. I'll draw the comparison to the Grand Cherokee again. While the Explorer is a shade bigger, the Grand Cherokee certainly doesn't lack for being unit body. It has good offroad capability and good towing ability as well. I think the problem is most people think "unit body" and automatically assume it's going to be more of a crossover. The Grand Cherokee is 100% SUV in design and character. As long as Ford keeps the upright "truckiness" look to it and maintains the offroad capability and towing capacity, it should do fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01FOCI Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 (edited) Hmm, well sense the original Exploder was born from the Ranger platform, exploded into a SUV hit, was basically given its own platform due to its $$$ making capabilities, how about bring the Ranger and Exploder back closer like the orginal as to "share" costs assosited with the underpinnigs etc... Then the Exploder could have lower per cost unit to manufature and the Ranger could be brought back from the edge of disaster. Having 2 care based mid-size SUV "Edge vs Exploder" not to mention the merc and linc rebadges, seems to be overcrowding Fords lineup in an already crowded marketplace. I see the Edge appleaing mostly to suburbanites and a few urban folk, wherease the BOF Exploder will appeal to a few suburbinites and have a greater country folk appeal. If Ford moves the Exploder to a Uni-body even closely similer to the Edge in size capacities etc... Its dead. Edited February 2, 2007 by 01FOCI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Hmm, well sense the original Exploder was born from the Ranger platform, exploded into a SUV hit, was basically given its own platform due to its $$$ making capabilities, how about bring the Ranger and Exploder back closer like the orginal as to "share" costs assosited with the underpinnigs etc... Then the Exploder could have lower per cost unit to manufature and the Ranger could be brought back from the edge of disaster. Having 2 care based mid-size SUV "Edge vs Exploder" not to mention the merc and linc rebadges, seems to be overcrowding Fords lineup in an already crowded marketplace. I see the Edge appleaing mostly to suburbanites and a few urban folk, wherease the BOF Exploder will appeal to a few suburbinites and have a greater country folk appeal. If the move the Exploder to a Uni-body even closely similer to the Edge in size capacities etc... Its dead. There's the assumption again that since it's unit body it would just have to be more like a crossover. That's simply NOT the case. I don't see anyone mistaking the Land Rover Range Rover for a crossover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Speaking of competition, the Pathfinder will receive a 317HP 5.6L V8 from the Titan... LINK-Tcc.com Wonder if the mags will bitch about mileage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointy Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 (edited) As for the '06 being shortchanged by its past, I completely disagree. It got shortchanged by the designers who didn't do NEARLY enough to tell customers "hey, this baby is new." Amen, Amen, Amen This goes along with your statement. If Ford wants to sell, it needs to stop acting so defeated and start kicking ass with what they do have. http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070202/ford_f150.html?.v=3 Edited February 3, 2007 by pointy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 this Is what I would do RWD unibody platform. 3.8l v6 optional 5.4l v8 6-7 spd trnasmission RWD or AWD 3 rows of seats. can tow 5000lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Why not just life the LR3 platform? Skin's cheap comparatively. They're both about the same size. The LR3 is an excellent platform by most measures. Since the development is already done for it, just tool in the US to build it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Why not just life the LR3 platform? Skin's cheap comparatively. They're both about the same size. The LR3 is an excellent platform by most measures. Since the development is already done for it, just tool in the US to build it. It's a possibility. Not sure how expensive that platform would be to use on a significantly cheaper product like the Explorer though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Kolman Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 (edited) LR3 platform is far too expensive to utilize... Got to remember the LR3 and RR Sport both have all kinds of electronic wizardry and muti-level air suspension. All this would have to be removed to avoid having the Explorer increase too much in price, or loose all of its profit margin. By the time you'd be done modifying the platform you'd end up spending nearly as much and not end up with the best in class due to compromises made for the luxury market... See D3. I've got say the idea of another car-based SUV/crossover is simply confusing... It's not that a unibody platform can't be made into a credible traditional SUV, Jeep has proven that. It’s that only Ford would think that 4 car-like utilities in the lineup isn’t enough. That there’s a market hole with Escape, Edge, TaurusX, and Fairlane in the same lineup. This looks even worse when you consider how Nissan has solidified its lineup and reduced inherent costs by having the Frontier, Pathfinder, and Xterra are all on the same platform (all related to the Titan and Armada). While Ford has the Ranger, Explorer, Escape, F150, and Expedition on completely unrelated platforms. Edited February 12, 2007 by Kris Kolman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 The Explorer should be almost identical to the new GM CUVs (Acadia, Enclave, Outlook) which look very good. I think it would replace the Taurus X although they could switch the Taurus X back to a more traditional station wagon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.