I'm curious what you mean when you say that the other makers copied the Explorer, since at the time it was introduced most folks in the auto industry considered the Explorer to be Ford's copy of the Cherokee. The first "modern-day" smaller SUVs were the S-10 Blazer, the Bronco II, and the Cherokee...all of which came out in 1983-1984, IIRC. The Cherokee ended up far outselling the others - especially the Bronco II - and Ford went back to the drawing board to try to figure out how to come up with something more competitive. They realized that one of the weaknesses was the on-road ride and drive of the Bronco II (partially caused by the short wheelbase), and they redesigned the Explorer to address these problems. In fact, at the time one of the slang terms we used for the Explorer was the "Ford Cherokee". Since Jeep didn't do a very good job of keeping the Cherokee updated, gradually the Explorer took over as the largest-selling small SUV.

One big difference between them was that the Explorer had a frame and the Cherokee didn't - using the Ranger platform reduced costs for Ford, rather than building an all-new platform like Jeep did with the Cherokee. Jeep did introduce a pickup based on that platform a few years later (the Comanche), but it wasn't very popular.

LK

 

It is usually accepted that the Explorer changed the SUV market ....I personally believe the first Sport UT was the BII....just my opinion.

 

actullay the explorer was built from the rang rover concept which has been out for a long time.(iread this somewhere

 

Interesting. I was unaware that the explorer has a frame. Do you know the advantages of unibody? I would think the explorer would be much better of with unibody. If its primary intended use is a soccor mom taxi.

 

Tim - IIRC, both the BII and S-10 Blazer came out in '83 and the Cherokee came out in '84. So, technically the BII and S-10 Blazer came out at the same time - but since I always hated the mini-Blazer, I'll ignore that one. The Cherokee was a year later, but was the first one with four doors and was the most car-like on the road (partially because of the unibody)...and when it was introduced it won nearly every award out there, with many auto journalists calling it "revolutionary". However, it could certainly be argued that it was the BII that was the first SUV, or the Scout, or even the older trucks like the ****** wagon. I wonder when the term "sport-utility vehicle" was first used? Maybe the late '80s...

Personally, I wish the SUV craze had never happened - now that everything rides like cars, everyone wants to buy them and the prices have gone through the roof. If they all still rode like lumberwagons, that never would've happened...I miss the old Scouts, and early Broncos, and full-size Blazers with solid front axles. Ford has talked about re-introducing the Bronco, and I'm curious if they actually go ahead with it.

460429_freak - I hadn't heard that one before, though it's interesting. Ford didn't own Land Rover back then, so it seems a bit odd that it would be a Range Rover concept. However, stranger things have happened.

Logical Heretic - There are numerous advantages and disadvantages to a frame vs. unibody construction. The main advantages of the unibody would be lighter weight, and a stiffer structure that contibutes to better ride & handling. The main advantages to body-on-frame is that it's generally stronger, easier & simpler to build, and easier to repair. From what I understood at the time, Ford mainly went with a frame because they were making both a pickup and an SUV on the same chassis, and using a BOF reduced development costs. I suspect Ford will stick to this design for a while, since it's cheap to build and generally provides for a higher towing capacity (because of a stronger hitch attachment point, among other things). Some will say that one type is stronger than the other, but it really depends on how they're designed - it's possible to build a very strong vehicle with unibody, and possible to build a weak one with a frame. In my opinion, the Cherokee's weakness is that the front bumper and front unibody structure is very weak - while they'll hold up pretty well off-road, hit something with the front end and they fold up like a tin can. However, that's not the fault of the unibody, it's just a bad design - the AMC Eagle, which was also unibody and made by the same company, was known to be nearly indestructible. A number of years ago in Chicago, I saw what happens when an Eagle and a Cherokee have a front-end collision - the Cherokee was totaled, and the only damage on the Eagle was a slight scratch on the bumper and a crack in the plastic trim.

LK

 

The first Broncos (1966), Blazers (1969) , Scouts (1961), and most importantly, ****** Jeep station wagons (1949, 4wd) and the Jeep Wagoneer (1962), were the first sport utility vehicles. The technical service manual (from '74) for my 1974 Jeep Cherokee calls it a "sport-utility vehicle."

 

This I very much doubt.
If you could find the details it would be much appreciated.
I was of the understanding that the original Explorer was built on the ranger platform.

Many manyfacturers copied the Range Rover (Nissan Patrol for example) but I can almost assure you that Ford didn't, they certainly didn't copy the nice handling, awesome off road capability, or the coil sprung rear suspension...
But then again they didn't copy the price either...

 

It was.....

 

I know I'm getting off-track here, but you actually have a manual for your '74? That's impressive...I'm lucky I still know where the manual is for my 2004! It always seems like I take the manual out to look at something (torque specs, most of the time) and then it becomes another one of the 363,735,210 things that are "someplace in the garage". I do have a manual for a 1950 ****** wagon in there someplace...if I ever find it I'll make sure to save that one. I didn't realize that they'd used that term for the older Cherokees, but I also haven't read a manual for one of those in 25+ years...and my memory isn't all that great.

LK

 

I think there was a remark earlier in this thread about a 3/4 truck with the HEMI being a turd- so that obviously means the 5.4 in the Super Duty is even worse- since the HEMI is more powerful. And I wouldn't count Dodge out of the game since they have the new 6.1 HEMI being released this spring with 425HP with cylinder deactivation to help gas mileage. More power than the V10's on the market, with fuel efficiency of a much smaller V8 engine.

 

Knowing Dodge engineering, how well do you think it will work when it first comes out? And thats an honest question, not a smart remark.

 

Very well, because it isn't dodge engineering anymore-its mercedes who have been using it on their vehicles for a few years now.

 

Talk to anyone who has pulled with the semi hemi and they are not so impressed.

 

I've never towed anything with the hemi, but I have test driven one, and it was a very strong running engine. I followed a ram 2500 one time out of a rest area, towing about a 20ft trailer.... I could hardly keep up in a 6 cylendar sedan. The new 6.1 turning 425 hp...... I don't think ford has anything to compare.

I still love my F-150!

 

Dodge is changing engines like I change my underware. Now they have a 6.1 hemi. What next a7.0 hemi,9.0 hemi. I challenge you to put a hemi HD against a V-10 ford pulling the same load up a steep hill. The hemi will die and the V-10 will keep going. That why there upping the power.Its all about low end torque the 5.4 and V-10 both have it the hemi doesnt. Facts are facts you cant change them. The hemi is just a name. A marketing tool for Dodge.