Ford Inside News banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,028 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Last time we had our hands on the new Ford Explorer, it finished sixth out of six in our three-row SUV comparison test. Yes, friends, dead last. But that car was a preproduction vehicle, and quite literally fell apart on us. This time around, by dint of its new 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine, I think the Explorer would have placed lower. Like below a city bus. Yes, my kneecaps are thankful Harry Bennett is dead.

"It's just such inefficient packaging," crowed bossman Angus MacKenzie as we stood contemplating Ford's big-on-the-outside, cramped-on-the-inside kiddie hauler. What exactly is so wrong with it? "It's intellectually dishonest," continued Angus. "It looks roomy, but it's not. It looks sporty, but it's not. And the interior looks good, but that MyFord Touch is a mess. It's just a bad vehicle." Keep in mind, Angus hadn't even driven the four-banger version yet.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1108_ford_explorer_ecoboost_test/#ixzz1WRPVXxdU
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,028 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
The numbers. The objetive data:


2012 Ford Explorer Limited
BASE PRICE $28,995
PRICE AS TESTED $42,305
VEHICLE LAYOUT Front engine, AWD, 7-pass, 4-door SUV
ENGINE 2.0L/240-hp/270-lb-ft turbo DOHC 4-valve I-4
TRANSMISSION 6-speed automatic
CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 4512 lb (54/46%)
WHEELBASE 112.6 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 197.1 x 78.9 x 70.4 in
0-60 MPH 9.2 sec
QUARTER MILE 16.9 sec @ 82.9 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 130 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.81 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 29.2 sec @ 0.56 g (avg)
MT OBSERVED FUEL ECON 19.9 mpg
EPA CITY/HWY FUEL ECON 20/28 mpg
ENERGY CONSUMPTION, CITY/HWY 169/120 kW-hrs/100 miles
CO2 EMISSIONS 0.85 lb/mile

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1108_ford_explorer_ecoboost_test/#ixzz1WRR63Ema


Motor Trend say that the Explorer is a bad vehicle. The numbers: with a 4 cyl engine, 6 speed auto, 240 hp, 4512 lb, 1/4 mile time of 16,9 sec , fuel economy of 20/28, braking 130 ft, lateral aceleration 0,81g

But Motor Trend say that other vehicle is a vehicle "... that simply goes about doing its job, and does it well." The numbers: V6 cyl engine, 5 speed auto, 250 hp, 4562 lb, 1/4 mile time 16,6 sec , fuel economy of 16/22, braking 142 ft.,lateral aceleration 0,75g This vehicle is the 2011 Honda Pilot... !!!

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1103_2011_honda_pilot_test/viewall.html

Why Motor Trend say that the Explorer is a bad vehicle and the Pilot is a vehicle that does its jobs well??? Maybe because nobody in Motor Trend staff could understand how to use an advanced comunication center like the MyFord Touch? Or maybe because with 10 hp less than the V6 powered Honda, is almost as quick? Or maybe because the Ford is better in all others performance measures? Or maybe because the Explorer is a Ford and the Pilot is a Honda???

Motor Trend lost all their credibility , in my opinion

Here other review from Autoblog:

Ford is no stranger to convincing buyers to embrace smaller displacement, forced-induction engines over their larger, naturally-aspirated counterparts. A little less than a year ago, skeptics wondered whether typically change-averse full-size truck consumers would be willing to swap their tried-and-true V8 for the turbocharged V6 EcoBoost engine now available in the F-150. According to Ford, that question has been answered – fully 41 percent of its half-ton pickups are rolling out the door with a forced-induction six-cylinder under the hood.

There's no great mystery behind the trend. As fuel prices have inched their way upward, vehicle shoppers have begun to count efficiency among the biggest factors that influence their final decision. According to Ford, a whopping 35 percent of Explorer buyers count the vehicle's fuel efficiency as the biggest reason behind their purchase. Read more here:

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/08/29/2012-ford-explorer-ecoboost-first-drive-review/#continued
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,028 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Maybe Motor Trend needs a 3 pages of Explorer advertising payid for Ford !!
 

·
The Spaminator
Joined
·
5,791 Posts
It does not seem like MT understands that the 2.0 EB is not for going all sport. Its for fuel economy is this package. I wonder what they might say with the 98 hp Focus sold in the UK?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
Difference between an 8.5 (Pilot) and a 9.2 (Explorer) in the 0-60 is definitely noticable. Then consider the fact the Pilot tested is a 4WD and the Explorer is FWD, there's an expected penalty in power going from FWD to 4WD. There's also a component of almost no towing ability on the Explorer w/2.0EB. And there's natrually a higher standard on a new vehicle, than one that's been on the market for almost 3 years.

I can't speak for their major complaints of packaging, handling and interior ergonomics, but looking at the vehicle and the powertrain I can see their concern there. What is it? It's quite slow for it's segment. There's very little towing capacity for it's segment (2k towing max). No 4WD/AWD option. It does get 1.5mpg more than the 3.5L, but it costs $900 more. The 2.0EB just seems like a really tough sell to me in this vehicle too. That's a whole lotta sacrifice for another 1.5mpg, even if it were 3-4 mpg.

Maybe because nobody in Motor Trend staff could understand how to use an advanced comunication center like the MyFord Touch?
MFT has been a sore spot for Ford across the board, it seems like everyone is having problems with it.

Sales are good though, I don't think Ford is really concerned with the one "bad" review.
 

·
Mercury C557
Joined
·
22,734 Posts
even tho I really hope Ford gets over its FIXATION with a D3-4 CUVs < several imhos in there
...
..."It's just such inefficient packaging," crowed bossman Angus MacKenzie as we stood contemplating Ford's big-on-the-outside, cramped-on-the-inside kiddie hauler. What exactly is so wrong with it? "It's intellectually dishonest," continued Angus. "It looks roomy, but it's not. It looks sporty, but it's not. And the interior looks good, but that MyFord Touch is a mess. It's just a bad vehicle." Keep in mind, Angus hadn't even driven the four-banger version yet...
even tho I haven't met or seen Angus, I DON"T LIKE HIM

imho he's a "mess" +
doesn't even LOOK sporty +
he takes up too much room +
he's "intellectually dishonest" ... since imho he's not intellectual, guess I should just say Dishonest +
he acts like a ROOSTER (crowing)



...It does get 1.5mpg more than the 3.5L, but it costs $900 more...
can someone please figure out how many miles it'd take to make up this price difference?
(just use $4 per gallon)
((not that I believe COST ought to be the Main reason for trying to use less gas!))
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,028 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Here other, rational and objetive, article about the Ecoboost Explorer, from Automobile magazine. Nothing in common with the Motor Trend's attack against this Ford:


For 2012, Ford is putting its Ecoboost technology to work in its popular Explorer and Edge sport-utilities, in a quest for better gas mileage. Previously available only with V-6 engines (which continue), the Explorer and the Edge are both adding a turbocharged, direct-injected 2.0-liter four-cylinder.

Ecoboost for (nearly) all
If you think you've heard a lot already about Ecoboost, Ford's very clever and much-hyped brand name for direct injection combined with turbocharging, well, you ain't heard nothin' yet. Ecoboost is already offered in V-6 form in the Lincoln MKS and MKT, the Ford Flex and Taurus SHO, and the Ford F-150. By 2013, there will be an Ecoboost engine available in 90 percent of Ford's U.S. models. So there's lots more Ecoboost to come.



The 2.0-liter turbo four is making its U.S. debut in the Explorer and the Edge. (The engine will be coming to the Taurus early next year, and is also slated for the upcoming Focus ST.) In the Explorer, it makes 237 hp and 250 pound-feet of torque; and for the Edge the figures are 240 hp and 270 pound-feet. Those numbers compare favorably to VW's 2.0T (200 hp, 207 pound-feet); but the Ford figures are less impressive next to Kia's 2.0-liter turbo (260 hp, 269 lb-ft).

read more here: http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/1108_2012_ford_explorer_and_2012_ford_edge_ecoboost/index.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
can someone please figure out how many miles it'd take to make up this price difference?
(just use $4 per gallon)
((not that I believe COST ought to be the Main reason for trying to use less gas!))
If you're assuming 18.5 mpg for the 3.5L and 20.0 mpg for the 2.0EB, then the number is 55,500 miles.

Edit
Actually, the price of the option is $995, not $900 from what I thought. Going by the actual price, it's 62,000 miles. Going by the EPA averages of 21 mpg for the 3.5L and 24 mpg for the 2.0EB, the point where you'd make up the difference is at 42,000.

So basically you're looking at a rather wide range between 40,000 and 65,000 miles depending on how you drive for the breakeven point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,679 Posts
If you're assuming 18.5 mpg for the 3.5L and 20.0 mpg for the 2.0EB, then the number is 55,500 miles.

Edit
Actually, the price of the option is $995, not $900 from what I thought. Going by the actual price, it's 62,000 miles. Going by the EPA averages of 21 mpg for the 3.5L and 24 mpg for the 2.0EB, the point where you'd make up the difference is at 42,000.

So basically you're looking at a rather wide range between 40,000 and 65,000 miles depending on how you drive for the breakeven point.
That seems pretty reasonable . . . still it should be a no cost option.
 

·
Mercury C557
Joined
·
22,734 Posts
If you're assuming 18.5 mpg for the 3.5L and 20.0 mpg for the 2.0EB, then the number is 55,500 miles.

Edit
Actually, the price of the option is $995, not $900 from what I thought. Going by the actual price, it's 62,000 miles. Going by the EPA averages of 21 mpg for the 3.5L and 24 mpg for the 2.0EB, the point where you'd make up the difference is at 42,000.

So basically you're looking at a rather wide range between 40,000 and 65,000 miles depending on how you drive for the breakeven point.
THANKS jaydee
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
607 Posts
I don't get the, "It looks roomy, but it's not," remark. I'm a bit biased, no doubt, since I own a 2011 4WD Limited but I examined it along with those I considered competition: the Traverse (claustrophobic due to its high seatbacks, low seating position, and smallish windows), the Durango (close but its cargo area was smaller when the seats were all in use), the Flex (roomier than the Explorer but odd-looking and lacked the updated V6), the Caravan/T&C (rickety and uncomfortable seating), and the Odyssey (too foreign). The Explorer Limited with the middle buckets and no middle console offered the best room, comfort, and luxury of all of them. The V6 is plenty powerful and returns an average of 20 mpg in a mix of city, suburban, and highway driving, and 24 mpg on the open road loaded up with my four teens, my wife, me, and all our stuff. And it holds a lot of cargo due to its well that the back seats to fold into, something the Dodge and Chevy lack. The 4WD system with TMS works great and the dual sunroofs coupled with the lighter-colored interior give it an airy, open feel. Leg, hip, head, and shoulder room is plentiful throughout. The technology is head of the class when it works properly, which is most of the time. When it doesn't on occasion, it's maddening so I'm looking forward to the update coming this month.

That MT used a PRE-production model against production models in its first comparo was down right ridiculous. They should've either waited for a production model or not included it at all. To complain about quality, ride, and handling when Ford warned them that those traits were not finalized on the test vehicle and all addressed on production models is inexcusably poor judgment on their part.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top