Ford Inside News banner

2018 Ford Explorer

15K views 46 replies 16 participants last post by  spudz64 
#1 ·
FORD PROJECTS CONTINUED SUV GROWTH, ANNOUNCES EXPLORER UPDATES FOR 2018



NEW YORK, April 10, 2017 – Ford sees the SUV segment growing further – accounting for more than 45 percent of the non-premium U.S. retail auto industry in the next five to seven years. Ford is well-positioned for this growth, with plans to add five all-new SUVs to its lineup in North America by 2020.

Demographics are driving the anticipated trend, as more millennials and baby boomers favor the functionality and technology SUVs bring.

“In the 1990s, SUVs defined the unstoppable American spirit, and once again, we’re seeing a utility boom take hold with a whole new generation of customers,” said Mark LaNeve, Ford vice president, U.S. marketing, sales and service. “Two sets of consumers – millennials and baby boomers – are driving this growth, and Ford will be ready with a full portfolio of SUVs to meet their needs.”

https://media.ford.com/content/ford...v-growth-announces-2018-explorer-updates.html
 
See less See more
1
#2 ·
Weird that all the camo we saw was for a very modest bumper update, but at least the mystery is cleared up now.

I wouldn't really call this an MCE, no substantive updates. I think it's mostly an MCE extension since the segment is getting more competitive with Ford Explorer sales peaking/softening, they need to spruce up the old goose to get it to 10 years before we hopefully see something new. It's a little like what happens to the Grand Cherokee.

It's always a little surprising to me that Ford's most profitable and bestselling products tend to see the longest and occasionally uncertain timelines.
 
#4 ·
The update is a little unusual, it comes only 2 years after the 2016 MCE. By comparison the Explorer went from 2011 to 2015 without any revisions. It could be Ford responding to the new Chevy Traverse with something fresh for the same year. I still like the look of the Explorer better although I expect the Traverse to be a substantially more modern vehicle overall. The real issue with Explorer is interior size and platform dynamics but as long as they match amenities it should be fine.

I am really surprised to see it didn't get active crash avoidance, that must be a platform limitation?
 
#8 ·
The new Traverse is quite the package overall, there is no doubt. And you are right about platform limitations restricting several safety and convenience features. Explorer is getting old for sure, but manages to still be a great seller, no doubt primarily due to looks and V8 power. Chevy is still behind in those aspects. But there is no doubt new platform Explorer will address shortcomings, and then some. In total, as mentioned, Ford will have quite the lineup once they add Bronco. New Expedition easily outclasses Tahoe, and they have no direct competitor to Edge and Bronco.
And here is a little tip on Bronco and it's roof. Think, 6 pack. All I'm sayin.
 
#10 ·
What do you guys think about Expedition growing in size while Explorer remains 112' wheelbase/
Does this give Ford reason to consider a longer wheelbase for NG Explorer while giving more
"product space" to Edge below it?

While I really like what Ford has done with the D3 Explorer, it is aging well but should be following
buyer trends towards better packaging of a 3-row SUV below the full sized BOF versions.

Interesting to see this refresh and speculat about the direction of NG Explorer
 
#12 ·
What do you guys think about Expedition growing in size while Explorer remains 112' wheelbase/
Does this give Ford reason to consider a longer wheelbase for NG Explorer while giving more
"product space" to Edge below it?...
just-imho
that ridiculously small wlb forced on the Explorer from its Volvo platform is deplorable
& even without any CAFE reasons for pushing the wheels to the corners,
imho the cD6 replacement could easily have a wlb longer than the Flex while still being a bit shorter in ovl...
...even if they kept the Ford Fwd... a Rwd form-factor (unavoidable prestige gap) oughta require at least a 120" wlb for a fullsize Cuv (or sedan)

.
 
#11 · (Edited)
There is no question the Explorer needs to grow internally, but not really externally. The Explorer and many D3/4 products suffer from poor packaging and typically boast the least interior space among their main competitors. But this has been the case all along and Explorer has been very successful regardless. Competition is getting more aggressive now and it's basically Explorer's market to loose so they have to make their next decisions smartly and I'm sure they will. Explorer sales were actually down last year, unless you factor in the UI sales. I know Ford projects continued SUV growth but I think we've probably seen peek Explorer sales as competition grows and the Explorer enters old age. But just like the aging Grand Cherokee, Explorer still has a strong brand that sells itself.
 
#13 · (Edited)
From my understanding Ford really scrambled on the Explorer and it was something of a rushed project. Ford has been struggling with what to do with the hugely popular BOF Explorer and their answer was to launch something else in parallel which turned out to be the ill-fated FreeStyle. In the meantime Ford was collectively loosing the very profitable people mover sales with the collapse of Explorer and FreeStar sales which contributed significantly to their crisis at the time and their decision paralysis. GM had some uncommonly keen insight with the Lambdas which ultimately influenced the creation of Explorer we have today and Ford finally gave up the ghost on the idea of parallel BOF Explorer and a Crossover Wagon. This meant that Ford had to scrap together an Explorer out of the bones of the FreeStyle/TaurusX/Flex which was never well suited for the roll of a tall SUV. So really it's amazing what they were able to achieve with limited resources and time. And it also created some of the best product mules history has ever seen.

 
#14 ·
The Freestyle later called Taurus X, was always supposed to be an answer to the Taurus & Taurus Wagon from the 90's, early 2000's. Nothing more. Explorer nameplate was always to exist. All that happened was CUV platform sharing, when Ford saw the popularity and customer focused benefits to unibody construction, growing in big numbers from the competition. Ford was following what they thought was a growing trend. I recall the decision quite well, having owned many Explorers/Mountaineers to date, while also having owned a Taurus X, which was second only to Flex in my favorite list of Ford People movers. My wife to this day loved our Flex and X immensely. It's quite possible that Ford is not the fumbling fools some frequently portray them to be in many product decisions.
 
#15 ·
I also agree.. my wife loved the Taurus X and now our Flex.. I now work pt at a ford dealership and as soon as a Freestyle or Taurus x is traded in ... it is GONE. They may not have sold many, probably due to lack of advertising, but they are popular.. the Taurus wagon on steroids..Ford does need a replacement for the Flex..
 
#16 ·
My favorite features for the X, were how the 3rd row could fold flat or fold rearward, for tailgating.
Also too, the 2nd row flip forward switch was mounted in the door jamb, for single hand operation while entering the 3rd row or just gaining rear storage. As an AWD wagon with the 3.5L, it was a gem. In many ways, better than the Flex.
 
#18 ·
Yeah, that's basically correct and actually, two things evolved together:
1. Station wagons became minivans and CUVs
2. SUVs based on trucks evolved to be more car like.

So here we see automakers attacking changing trends in buying patterns from two different directions.
Now add to that the change to Crew Cabs in full sized trucks and the picture of additional utility comes
into Focus.It's no wonder that sedans are being pushed out, they're far to vanilla - not enough versatility.
 
#20 ·
I got word from some very reliable sources that Ford has put CD6 development on hold indefinitely which is holding up the next-generation Explorer. No word on how this effects future Lincolns but it could be a significant problem for their plans to launch an Aviator. I know CD6 was suppose to be a significant platform for Lincoln's next-generation products so if true that might delay their planning.

Ford is undergoing a massive spending review which has been in progresses for about 9 months and it's believed the CD6 project has fallen victim to the budget cutting. Instead they are going to focus on extending the life of existing platforms. Essentially Ford can't afford new platforms right now.

I'm under the impression that quite a bit is influx and Ford is facing some really big economic challenges ahead so almost everything is uncertain which is making people extremely nervous.
 
#22 ·
I got word from some very reliable sources that Ford has put CD6 development on hold indefinitely which is holding up the next-generation Explorer. No word on how this effects future Lincolns but it could be a significant problem for their plans to launch an Aviator. I know CD6 was suppose to be a significant platform for Lincoln's next-generation products so if true that might delay their planning.

Ford is undergoing a massive spending review which has been in progresses for about 9 months and it's believed the CD6 project has fallen victim to the budget cutting. Instead they are going to focus on extending the life of existing platforms. Essentially Ford can't afford new platforms right now.

I'm under the impression that quite a bit is influx and Ford is facing some really big economic challenges ahead so almost everything is uncertain which is making people extremely nervous.
I imagine this has to do with electric vehicles. Is Ford designing this to be a gas, plugin hybrid, and total electric platform? There may be arguments about where money is being invested in the future.
 
#24 ·
The CD6 program has been around for at least 3 years now and products were suppose to start coming out in 2018. The Explorer is already riding on a 20-year old platform so the fact it's being extended beyond the decade does seem to point to the troubles they are having behind the scenes with some of their product planning. It could be a number of things we can't see such as costs, light-weighting, electrification, product trends, or just industry/financial headwinds. I know CD6 was suppose to be the basis of a next-generation US Taurus, a dream which was still alive within Ford up until recently believe it or not. I was surprised to learn it was still on their roadmap but apparently Ford has finally decided to drop the Taurus and the rapid sales decline of midsize cars was a big part of that decision. What never really made sense to me however is why didn't they develop the next Explorer and Aviator on CD4 since it's a relatively new platform? Why develop similar platforms so close to each other? Ford's slow and inconsistent product churn isn't alway a big deal to their bottom-line but this is a company that seems to live by the ups and downs of their own creation. We can only hope their product vision starts making sense in a few years.
 
#25 ·
Well, CD4 was just an extension of CD3 as far as I know.....by that I mean not all new, whereas I think CD6 will be closer to all new. CD4 may have been limited for utility use larger than Edge/MKX and may not have been ideal for Explorer/Aviator use (that's just a guess on my part). They were probably also trying to finally get some life out of D4, and Explorer had been doing well, so figured they could divert resources to other projects with D4 living on for a while longer, and at a certain point, working on a CD4 version to only replace it shortly thereafter with CD6 just may not have made sense.
 
#26 · (Edited)
I'm not clear on what CD6 actually was and if it was all-new, modular, electrified, or what the big deal was. But I do know it was a very expensive project and Lincoln was one of the reasons it was justified. Technically it has been 'shelved' so it could restart but we all know that never happens.

Originally I was under the impression that CD6 was simply a revision of CD4 that could handle the bigger EcoBoost engines for Explorer, but with the 3.0T in the Continental it was pretty clear to me that CD4 could do quite a bit already.

I know Ford had to constantly rework the D2/3/4 platform to get more power through the platform but the ceiling is obviously pretty high on CD4. I don't know of any mass-market platform that can get this much performance and power in so many configurations. The only concern with CD4 is that it's extremely porky.
 
#32 ·
We all know that Ford does not throw money at low volume dedicated architectures. Having Continental ride alone on an architecture is a no go. Letting New Taurus ride alone is a no go. Even developing an architecture for Continental and New Taurus in isolation, and not having it be related to the new CD6 architecture, or whatever it may be called makes no sense. Ford is all about maximum profitability from the unit, and could care less about winning sales contests(except the contests they are winning at the time).

So it doesn't take much to work out that the architectures that make up the Continental and New Taurus will be closely related to the new architecture of the upcoming new Explorer/Aviator, MKZ, Fusion/Mondeo, and next gen Edge/MKX, along with the upcoming new large Lincoln sedan.
 
#33 · (Edited)
The Continental is a CD4 car so it's definitely not in a vacuum or a dedicated architecture, it shares a platform with Fusion, Edge, MKZ, S-Max, Galaxy, and Chinese Taurus. A significant portion of the Continental is actually based on the Fusion with an floorplan extension in the rear passenger compartment and a few material and stamping differences to strengthen the enlarged cabin and improve sound isolation. The rest is cosmetic which is unique to the Continental, especially those aluminum components in the fenders and trunk. The Chinese Taurus is also dimensionally different, right down to the wheelbase, the two were not co-developed.

In either case, I wouldn't say that the investment needs to be covered (or can be covered) by anything but Continental and it's also quite possible to lose money trying to build and sell a car in a declining segment.
 
#34 · (Edited)
Actually didn't Ford clearly point out that Continental in it's new architecture, that it shares parts of the a-pillar forward with the CD4 Fusion/Mondeo with new technology, but rearward it shares a blend of MkS/MKT architecture with new technology. Which is why the wider Continental has the exact same rear legroom as the MKT with a huge trunk not found on MKS. Making it more of a blend of like 75% MKT/MKS 25%Fusion/Mondeo architecture wise.

Ford/Lincoln architectures going forward are a blend of tested/reliable technologies and new advanced technologies, based on the design needs of the specific vehicle. No one size fits all for cars or CUVs, but modifications/advancements added to an architecture to make it new for the specific vehicle implementation.

And with future models being able to be FWD or RWD, that blending and modular architecture technology offers great quantities of scale.
 
#38 · (Edited)
haven't been able to find the source or thread this comes from ... yet
but the .jpg says it's from a post by Sal Collaziano on my HD
(found out the dating on that folder is messed up...I *hate* Win7&^...
...looks like the .jpg "might be" dated Oct27,2016)
imho, looks like it's from a .Pdf brochure to me
 

Attachments

#41 ·
Yeah....I was looking for that. And then there is this directly from Lincoln:

"Think a blend more so to S(MKS) which goes away but adds a bit more size and capability for Conti’s needs, tech, design, etc."

So the front structure uses simalar design architecture with Fusion, but back of that 'blends' in more of the tested D3 platform for size(width/length) necessary for Continental.
 
#39 · (Edited)
LINK I just found via google

2017 Lincoln Continental Body Structure
in Extrication January 9, 2017 0 Comments
The 2017 Lincoln Continental has a strong body structure in the typical locations. Front Structure is based on the Fusion design and uses an S-Brace Rail section angles toward the rocker as it transitions under the dash for improved load path. Take a look at the different pictures and images below to get an inside look at the body structure.

more pix @ site (but not the one in previous post)

.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top