assuming? no.

ford itself says the new 2011 explorer is able to tow 5,000 max.

2012 Ford Explorer | View Explorer Features | Ford.com


With a towing capacity of up to 5,000 lbs., when properly equipped, the Explorer can haul a boat, camper or trailer. Power comes from its standard 3.5L Ti-VCT V6 engine that delivers 290 horsepower and 255 lb.-ft. of torque.


now a 2010 V8 4x4 explorer was able to tow over 7,000lbs...thats 2,000+ lbs! i dont know about you but thats a big difference in trailer size, or boat size...ect

http://www.ford.com/assets/pdf/towin...LORERsep09.pdf

• Tows trailers up to 7,115 lbs. when
properly equipped (4.6L V8/4x4)


so yes, the old 2010 V8 does OUT tow the new 2011.



also what i found is the old V8 was about 1 sec quicker to 60mph then the new 3.5. now ofcourse there are a few different numbers floating but these seemed the most consistant.



a 2010 v8 2WD Explorer Limited did 7.4 seconds 0-60 mph in our test.


a 2011 3.5 2011 Ford Explorer recorded a 0-60-mph time of 8.3 seconds


my '96 will be my last explorer as much as i love them. i may buy another 2nd gen as they are my fav. give me body on frame construction. its too far from its original to even be called a explorer anymore IMO. one reason i like my excursion it like the early explorers are a real truck underneath.


also, the old 4.6 made more power then the basic 3.5 and that found in the new explorer.

http://www.edmunds.com/ford/explorer/2010/

For 2010, the optional 4.6-liter V8 engine with 292 hp and 300 lb-ft of torque


http://www.edmunds.com/ford/explorer...road-test.html

3.5-liter V6 engine that produces 290 horsepower and 255 pound-feet of torque compared

 

Despite Fords claims that the 2010 Explorer can tow 7,000 lbs, lets be honest about it. The suspension is far to mushy to handle a 7,000 lbs trailer without being upgraded, that is Expedition territory. The old Explorers transmission was notorious for failures, lets see how long it lasts pulling 7,000 lbs. If I was pulling that much, I wouldn't want an Explorer period.

The whole point of an Explorer is something smaller and lighter duty than an Expedition. The Explorer grew outside its original design niche, why is it such a bad thing that it has slimmed down to become a leaner more efficient machine? Compare the fuel economy of a 3.5L versus the 4.6L And there is talk of an Ecoboost model in the near future, that will definitely put to rest any need for a gas guzzling V8 in this light SUV.

 

My '91 has been here for 321,000 miles, and so far, nothing big wrong yet. id much rather drive this one than the new one anyday.

 

my 2002 has 140k miles on it. MIght have spent 5-10 miles off road. I think what Kahn is trying to say is 90% of the purchasers of Explorers will be in the same boat. They want 4 x 4, want 7 passenger seating , want to drag a 4-5000 trailer now and then, and want to go off road when on vacation every other month for 2 miles, fly at 80 MPH down the highway in comfort and quiet, and get over 20 MPG doing it... Got to go with the money, thats what FORD is doing.

 

I have owned a '92 XLT 4wd and a '99 V8 AWD and loved them both for what they were. Mine only saw off pavement use at the beach (once a year) and hunt camp (3 weekends or so a year). The beach is a different beast, but hunt camp could be traversed in almost anything, 2wd or 4wd, unless it got really muddy.
I think that Ford is doing the right thing here. They have been flexible and paid attention to market needs. For example, the Honda Pilot has been front wheel drive since it's inception. Now its 4wd is nothing more than a selectable AWD up to 25mph, but it's perfectly "capable" of traversing muddy fire roads, beaches, etc. The 2011 Explorer, in my opinion, is a very well rounded vehicle. Sure it's lost its body on frame construction, but I'd be willing to bet that less than 1% of Expl owners care about that, and would ever put a, dare I say it, body lift on their Expl. Ford would not be making wise business decisions to create a mass marketed vehicle, in a growing and evolving niche, that is targeted at 1% of their buyers. They've done this with the Raptor, and it's worked, but it's a sidebar of the F150...not its own stand alone vehicle.

I think the 2011 Explorer is a great vechicle and in due time more people will grow to love it.

 

Or not! The next edsal?

 

I think anyone with a family in snow country would appreciate the new explorer a lot. There have been many situations that ive been in where a smaller crossover, even awd wouldn't cut it. I currently have a fusion for dd and a f-150 for those bad days. I think the new explorer is a perfect compromise. the explorer has never been a macho man bull pushing kind of rig. It's intended to be a jack of all trades, and the new one only improves on that concept. Im waiting for ford to put the 3.5L eco-boost in, then, (when those are 6-7 years old and I can afford one) I'll get one for sure

 

I have a 99 mountaineer with a 5.0, it may suck down gas but i didnt hear anyone pickin on me when i was pushin/pullin people out of the deep snow this past winter, or parking on top of snow banks in parkin lots, lol lets see the new wrong wheel drive explorers pull that off , and as far pullin trailers, i pulled a car trailer with my 89 caprice for an hour to the drag strip and back several times, original trans and motor with 183k trans shifts like a built trans and0the fluids still clean. Either way they souldve left the explorers name alobe or let it die with the ranger, they ready have the edge,taurus, escape for front wheel based suv.

 

Got no beef with FoMoCo for making something more people are willing to pay for, but I am lamenting the loss of the body-on-frame, RWD architecture anywhere in the market. I almost cried when I heard the Panther body cars were to go the way of the dodo last year, they were the last real "American Car". While FWD is certainly lighter and may be cheaper to produce, it does have its drawbacks, and I would happily buy small RWD vehicles if anyone still made them. It's an understatement to say that RWD vehicles are easier to repair when they do get old, and the layout is just very much more able to stand up to many years of hard service. I do 98% of my driving on the highway when there's no snow, but nonetheless I find RWD a lot easier to handle as its performance is very intuitive and more adaptable then FWD. I am a mechanic by trade, and I enjoy the work, but for some reason I absolutely loathe working on my own vehicles. I've had both FWD and RWD, and I really hate having to remove everything in the engine compartment just to do something simple like change the water pump. As a practical matter, RWD body-on-frame vehicles are cheaper to own after 150,000 miles, and I am sorry that Ford is giving up what is IMHO the best quality of their vehicles- easy to maintain and keep on the road, from day 1 until even after they get old. But seriously, the new X is just a giant station wagon. Not a truck.

 

I think they should just call it what it really is the "AEROSTAR II"
Jim & fat Monty

 

Not even close, the Aeroslut was nothing more than a Ranger with a box on it mechanicly, and RWD, just like the original Explorer. The new Explorer is built off of the new Taurus chassis. Just like the Pilot/Ridgline/etc is based off an Accord chassis.

There is a lot of tech from Land Rover built into the new Explorer that Ford kept when it sold them off to the Indians. It's a lot more capable than people are giving it credit for. Granted I will hold on to my truck because I need a truck. We actually considered looking at a new Explorer for the GF, but couldnt stomach the payment as with most newer Fords these days.

 

Tech from land rover? The same ones that bought the tooling for the 215 CID from Buick in 67'? And that's supposed to impress us? Sorry I call it as it is a FWD s$@¥box with a unit body, it's the equivalent of the AEROSTAR II it's closer to that than it is to an explorer! And yes they offered the AEROSTAR in AWD IIRC that it's built off the car chassis is even more unforgivable! What's next the Super Duty Focus cab chassis?

 

I think you're thinking of the Windstar, which was a FWD platform based off the Taurus. The Aerostar was based on the Ranger and Bronco II, as mentioned above, and was a RWD platform and the engine even sat under the hood longitudinally. That says the Aerostar was definitely more closely related to the light trucks than a FWD car.

-Rod

 

If it helps proove how wrong you are to think its anything like the Aerostar, the Aerostar was soo truck like , it beat out all the half tons and one tons to win the truck of the year award in 1992 from Car and Driver. It was a RWD unibody on frame design powered by either a 3.0L vulcan from the Ranger or a 4.0L V6 from the Ranger and Explorer, with an all time AWD option called E4WD. The Extended Version It had 8 feet of length from the back of the front seats, was over 4 feet wide inside, had good head room, far more than the Explorer either then or now has. So comparing the current Explorer to the Aerostar is based upon ignorance of what the Aerostar was. It was a truck in the shape of a van, much like its larger Econoline cousins. It was also built in the same factory that made the Ford light trucks. The later Windstar and Freestar were FWD vans based on the Taurus and were made in the Taurus plant.

To be honest, I rather like the current Explorer. Don't get me wrong here, I like Fords, I like the reliability, the sturdiness, etc. However, I never got the original Explorer. It was in my opinion to much of a fuel pig, you can get bigger SUVs and other vehicles that seat just as many people, that can get comparable fuel economy. It was powered by automatic transmissions that in their stock forms were know to kick the bucket. But the biggest thing was the type of people who bought them. Most of the people who bought them did not need such a vehicle. To them, it was a vehicle to transport their two kids to and from work and get groceries in. It was a trendy vehicle, purchased because society told them that SUVs were cool and functional, and that by rinding higher you can look down upon those who drive cars. Thats really most of what it was, it was a status thing. It was the alternative to the uncool station wagon or minivan. Now sure the Explorer had more power, again, most people don't need that, and some of that is to overcome the vehicles weight. Sure it can tow more than a station wagon or most minivans, but lets be honest, how many people do? Some, but certainly not the majority (BTW, my Aerostar has comparable towing capacity). Sure it has a descent amount of cargo space, again, lets be honest, there are a lot of vehicles that have a comparable amount of space.

This is why the Explorer was one of the top models crushed in the clunkers program. It was purchased by large numbers of people who didn't need the Explorer. Part of the conditions of the program was that the vehicle that they get gets at least 10 mpg better. If you can get by with such a vehicle, it just confirms that you probably didn't need the Explorer in the first place.

The New Explorer is leaner less fuel hungry. I think this fixes the biggest flaw the old one had. It seats just as many people, and since most people don't do hard off roading, the switch from RWD to FWD isn't going to be a major issue. Furthermore, most people who live in snowy areas are going to opt for the 4WD model anyway. The new Explorer isn't much different from the Range Rover Evoque, which has proven its offroad capabilities. I would think the new Explorer can stand its own just fine.

 

I stand corrected "WINDSTAR II" don't get me wrong its not that I don't think there's a market for front drive minivan/cars! But the explorer is a long time Ford truck platform! And now building it off a car chassis is a insult to the name! Sorry if you don't like my opinion, Monty is available to feild any further questions....lol
Jim & fat (publicity Dog) Monty