Good points

 

As the former owner of a 1998 Explorer and the current owner of a 2007 Explorer, I am not excited about a FWD pseudo SUV. I don't go off road often, but I do go off road enough to appreciate the flexibility of a truck. The 2011 Explorer might as well be a minivan.

 

I'm not really an Explorer guy but I LOVE this one.

 

It is, just without the sliding doors. Even the clown in the video for the NYC "unveil" called it a car.

Seriously, look at how low the front bumper is.

 

"Ford could have owned the American mid-size 'traditional' SUV market.....duh" Ya, all 50K units annually.

The traditional SUV is what "died on the vine". Very few people took their $30-$40K vehicle off road and most of these buyers finally realize they don't want to pay for this capability and then be too afraid of scratching their paint. These same people still want a vehicle that has the attention put into it's design, worthy of the Explorer name.



Mike

99 F150 w/ 145K miles and going very strong!

 

Not quite...

 

Maybe it will be better in person. I hated the new F150 but then when I saw it in person I was more impressed. It's definitely love or hate looks but at least they did something bold. I wonder how the FWD version of this will do in the snow.

 

What I'm most interested in is which direction is the Ranger heading into? Will these two share platforms once again? What's to become of the sport trac?

 

I read that the Sport Trac is going bye bye, have not looked into it any further however. The Ranger should be able to use the 3.5l and 2.0l EB engines with the proper transmission. That if they don't screw that up too and make it a FWD Uni too.

 

They had to do something with it. The sales were really slow. I kind of like how it has off road capability and class leading fuel economy. They could at least had one in the Eddie Bauer edition.

 

I'm confused why everyone is trashing it just because its a unibody constructed vehicle. Don't get me wrong, I understand a ladder-frame constructed vehicle is typically better at producing something heavy-duty, built to tow toys, etc.

However, do you not think that uni-body construction methods have advanced in the past 10 years? They are building uni-body frames a lot stronger than years gone by.

Also, the new Explorer will still tow a family boat, decent size camper, trailer of dirt bikes, etc. Its going to be more than adequate to haul. If you're towing something that much heavier, than you'd probably be better off in a pickup-truck or expedition.

On the flip side:

I don't understand Ford's reasoning behind making the Explorer a Flex/Edge type vehicle. Granted, the explorere will be bigger than the edge and around the same as a flex i guess (haven't looked at the specs to compare flex & explorer size yet).

So all that to say this: Don't be stuck in the old-school thought of uni-body=junk. I think chassis engineering has come a long way. I'm not saying its a replacement for a true frame truck, but for light/medium duty, its probably going to fit well.

 

No one has even mentioned a problem with it being unibody. Two of the most capable off-road SUVs of all time - the Jeep Cherokee and Grand Cherokee were both unibody.

The problem is its now low to the ground, FWD, and has huge wheels with tin sidewall tires. Sure it will probably tow a small trail fine, but any offroad ability it could have possibly had is now gone.

 

There's another Explorer thread that was paralleling this one but I think it took a much needed break.

All I have to say is this to the loyalists of the first gen Explorers. You must have been pretty ticked off when Ford switch to the IFS from the TTB and made all the other changes.

This Explorer will be a very nice vehicle, don't give up on it just yet.

 

So people are paying the same amount now for less capability. I think there are going to be some hard-core SUV buyers duped into buying these and they are going to be sorely disappointed. I still don't think this new Explorer is worthy of the Explorer name, and people will discover this.

 

The change to IFS in '95 didn't bother me, the switch to IRS in '02 I wasn't exactly thrilled about.