Topic: First Drive: 2011 Ford Explorer

[Autos_Editor]

Now with unibody construction, the all-new 2011 Ford Explorer "is a clean-sheet re-think that'modernizes the concept as it relates to an SUV target-market that wants better fuel economy, less truck-like hardware and ride," says Paul Williams.

Read More...

[tpl]

It is not clear to me what the difference is between this new Explorer and an AWD Flex.  Same platform, same sort of carrying capacity.  I am sure there is something important.

[MKII]

It is not clear to me what the difference is between this new Explorer and an AWD Flex.  Same platform, same sort of carrying capacity.  I am sure there is something important.

Form the article should answer you question.
But the Explorer will also handle some very rough terrain, as demonstrated at an off-road event organized by Ford at the Lions, Tigers and Bears rescue facility in Alpine, California (www.lionstigersandbears.org ). Severe hills were ascended and descended without difficulty by the Explorer; its Hill Descent system maintaining control while travelling down very steep trails that would be treacherous for most family vehicles. Mud, water, sand and deep ruts were all dispatched by the Explorer without drama, and although this vehicle isn’t designed as an extreme rock crawler, the Explorer will meet and exceed most owners’ off-road requirements.

Flex you would not to take off-road.

I'd say the difference is the consumers preference or perception what each vehicle purpose represents.

[tpl]

OK then I guess the suspension and underbody are quite different for strength and some different gearing from the Flex. 
But I still wonder why there wouldn't just be a Flex Cross-Country version and have one less set of manuals and sales literature.  Like a Volvo V70XC ( as used to be) compared to a V70  or the same in Audi at one point.

[Minou]

Base V6 FWD: $29,000
Base V6 4WD: $32,999
XLT V6 FWD: $35,899
XLT V6 4WD: $38,999
Limited V6 FWD: $41,199
Limited V6 4WD: $44,199
Freight: $1,400

4WD is 4K more on the base trim and the step to an XLT is pretty steep at 6-7K.  Looks like Ford is getting overly confident in its pricing strategy like GM.

Looks like they haven't exorcised their demons with the fuel economy either.

And I don't know if it's me but I really still don't dig Ford's interiors and dashboards and I think that the retirees and grey hair set buying this vehicle will be put off more than anything with all the multimedia and embarked tech galore they don't use.

[MKII]

Base V6 FWD: $29,000
Base V6 4WD: $32,999
XLT V6 FWD: $35,899
XLT V6 4WD: $38,999
Limited V6 FWD: $41,199
Limited V6 4WD: $44,199
Freight: $1,400

4WD is 4K more on the base trim and the step to an XLT is pretty steep at 6-7K.  Looks like Ford is getting overly confident in its pricing strategy like GM.

I think that the retirees and grey hair set buying this vehicle will be put off more than anything with all the multimedia and embarked tech galore they don't use.

You need to google industry highest transaction prices and you will see your assumption is incorrect regarding Ford & GM being over confident in their pricing strategy. GM and Ford lead the industry, with Kia & Hyundai doing very well as well.
Honda and Toyota are seeing the worst transaction price erosions among the major US-market players.

Re your gray hair scared of the tech assumption is incorrect as well......... From 2008 to 2009 the company's revenue per unit climbed from about $22,900 to $26,100, a 14 percent increase. Ford's VP of product Derek Kuzak said a third of that, about $1,000 per car, was due to newly available tech options.

True, Sync alone could take credit, with offerings like MyTouch also bolstering Ford's image in the eyes of buyers. Kuzak said another portion of the increase was due to people simply opting for higher trim levels. But one-third of buyers are said to have been swayed by SYNC, making it a great lead-in to get them into a pricier option. Ford is expanding its MyTouch system to 80 percent of its line, and there's sure to be more where that came from.


These statements from Ford brass seem to mirror what my Ford sales consultant brother tells me. He is saying the MyFord Touch feature is boosting sales big time, and also even the lowest trim lines such as a SE 4 cylinder Fusion, customers want loaded up creating higher transaction price then the higher trim SEL V6 model. The new tech and goodies now available throughout the Ford vehicle line up has been a big + for higher transaction prices.
 

[Sival]

Base V6 FWD: $29,000
Base V6 4WD: $32,999
XLT V6 FWD: $35,899
XLT V6 4WD: $38,999
Limited V6 FWD: $41,199
Limited V6 4WD: $44,199
Freight: $1,400

4WD is 4K more on the base trim and the step to an XLT is pretty steep at 6-7K.  Looks like Ford is getting overly confident in its pricing strategy like GM.

I think that the retirees and grey hair set buying this vehicle will be put off more than anything with all the multimedia and embarked tech galore they don't use.

You need to google industry highest transaction prices and you will see your assumption is incorrect regarding Ford & GM being over confident in their pricing strategy. GM and Ford lead the industry, with Kia & Hyundai doing very well as well.
Honda and Toyota are seeing the worst transaction price erosions among the major US-market players.

I've not checked the data, but it seems sensible to me. For years, Toyota and Honda have sold their cars at a premium due to (perceived and/or real) better quality and reliability. With the other companies catching up fast in the past few years, I'm guessing that the case for paying a few thousand dollars more for a Toyota or a Honda versus a similar Hyundai, a Ford or a GM, is becoming weaker and weaker.

[Dante]

I like this SUV and I think it just became the "best-in-class" in my books, based on the third-party info (I haven't seen one myself).

The big plus IMO is that it can seat 7 adults and it seems to provide good utility, with a decent 4WD system. I also like the design in and out.To qualify what I see as its core/main competitors: Traverse, Acadia, Durango, Highlander, Pilot, Mazda CX9, Veracruz.

The only issue I see with this vehicle at the moment is Ford's (stupid) decision to offer the wrong-size EcoBoost engine; they should offer the 3.5L V6 EcoBoost not the 2.0 I4. This is a big/heavy vehicle and the little 4 pot will be taxed to hell to move this monster IMO.

I think it will sell very well in the US.

[Erik]

Spoke to a friend who has been driving Explorers for more than 15 years now, and he is not interested in the new one. As he does a lot if towing, the lack of a full frame is the deal breaker for him.

[ktm525]

I like this SUV and I think it just became the "best-in-class" in my books, based on the third-party info (I haven't seen one myself).

The big plus IMO is that it can seat 7 adults and it seems to provide good utility, with a decent 4WD system. I also like the design in and out.To qualify what I see as its core/main competitors: Traverse, Acadia, Durango, Highlander, Pilot, Mazda CX9, Veracruz.

The only issue I see with this vehicle at the moment is Ford's (stupid) decision to offer the wrong-size EcoBoost engine; they should offer the 3.5L V6 EcoBoost not the 2.0 I4. This is a big/heavy vehicle and the little 4 pot will be taxed to hell to move this monster IMO.

I think it will sell very well in the US.

I agree with engine choice. The V6 lacks torque and the little that comes does so at high RPM. A vehicle like this needs low lazy torque. That being said I like the new Explorer. I see lots of Land Rover LR3 in it. The terrain control, hill descent and third row seat design are copied from the Land Rover.

[inco]

Really like the looks of this puppy but cannot for the life of me figure out why Ford would even want to consider a four cylinder in it. Weight is still an issue here and even though its 45 kilos lighter than the previous one - your still over 4,000 pounds.

Have to agree with CarCrazy that the 6 should/would be the best choice for boost.

It would also be nice to see the third row seating as an option and not mandatory. That extra space comes in handy.

[G0dspd]

Spoke to a friend who has been driving Explorers for more than 15 years now, and he is not interested in the new one. As he does a lot if towing, the lack of a full frame is the deal breaker for him.

I also know a few people who bought these (V8) to haul their campers around.  I think Ford is doing the smart thing by moving the Explorer away from the mid-size SUV segment and into the full-size CUV segment.  It can still tow a very decent 5000 lbs while being relatively fuel efficient.  These days, the 2011 Explorer will sell more units in its current format than it ever would as an old school body on frame SUV. IMHO

I agree with engine choice. The V6 lacks torque and the little that comes does so at high RPM. A vehicle like this needs low lazy torque.

Really like the looks of this puppy but cannot for the life of me figure out why Ford would even want to consider a four cylinder in it. Weight is still an issue here and even though its 45 kilos lighter than the previous one - your still over 4,000 pounds.

Have to agree with CarCrazy that the 6 should/would be the best choice for boost.

3.5   V6   290 hp - 255 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
2.0T I4    237 hp - 250 lb-ft @ 1750 rpm

3.5T V6   365 hp - 420 lb·ft @ 2500 rpm

I think the Ecoboost V6 would have been overkill in the Explorer ... and very expensive.  The Ecoboost Flex starts at $47 000 ... a Fiesta away from its $30 000 starting price.  The high rpm torque is also an "issue" in other similar CUVs/SUVs like the Journey, the Acadia and the 2011 Grand Cherokee V6.  It's probably a sacrifice that had to be made for better fuel efficiency.

The four cylinder seems capable enough but I don't know how buyers will react to the 2WD only (I think?).

[John MacDonald]

You'll want to add a facebook button to your blog. I just bookmarked this article, although I had to complete it manually. Simply my $.02

- Robson

[inco]

Production started last week and already they have 15,000 orders on the books. I wrote and asked for a brochure and all I got was a letter thanking me for my interest and to let me know that they have had to reprint the new brochures because thewy have run out!

Guess there won't be any reduced rates on this one for a long while. People are really liking Ford a lot.

[nsmyhte]

I like this SUV and I think it just became the "best-in-class" in my books, based on the third-party info (I haven't seen one myself).

The big plus IMO is that it can seat 7 adults and it seems to provide good utility, with a decent 4WD system. I also like the design in and out.To qualify what I see as its core/main competitors: Traverse, Acadia, Durango, Highlander, Pilot, Mazda CX9, Veracruz.

The only issue I see with this vehicle at the moment is Ford's (stupid) decision to offer the wrong-size EcoBoost engine; they should offer the 3.5L V6 EcoBoost not the 2.0 I4. This is a big/heavy vehicle and the little 4 pot will be taxed to hell to move this monster IMO.

I think it will sell very well in the US.

I agree with engine choice. The V6 lacks torque and the little that comes does so at high RPM. A vehicle like this needs low lazy torque. That being said I like the new Explorer. I see lots of Land Rover LR3 in it. The terrain control, hill descent and third row seat design are copied from the Land Rover.

Yes, the peak torque is at a fairly high rpm.  However, in these types of engines (V6, DI, DOHC), the torque curve is often very flat.  So, while the peak torque occurs at a highish rpm, most of the torque (80-90%) is available from low rpms.

[ktm525]

I like this SUV and I think it just became the "best-in-class" in my books, based on the third-party info (I haven't seen one myself).

The big plus IMO is that it can seat 7 adults and it seems to provide good utility, with a decent 4WD system. I also like the design in and out.To qualify what I see as its core/main competitors: Traverse, Acadia, Durango, Highlander, Pilot, Mazda CX9, Veracruz.

The only issue I see with this vehicle at the moment is Ford's (stupid) decision to offer the wrong-size EcoBoost engine; they should offer the 3.5L V6 EcoBoost not the 2.0 I4. This is a big/heavy vehicle and the little 4 pot will be taxed to hell to move this monster IMO.

I think it will sell very well in the US.

I agree with engine choice. The V6 lacks torque and the little that comes does so at high RPM. A vehicle like this needs low lazy torque. That being said I like the new Explorer. I see lots of Land Rover LR3 in it. The terrain control, hill descent and third row seat design are copied from the Land Rover.

Yes, the peak torque is at a fairly high rpm.  However, in these types of engines (V6, DI, DOHC), the torque curve is often very flat.  So, while the peak torque occurs at a highish rpm, most of the torque (80-90%) is available from low rpms.

torque curve chart? you got one?

[macgyver700210]

I think it's funny that journalists are still calling this an SUV.  Basing it on a front wheel drive car has moved it into the CUV category, and from what I can tell, it is abandoning true off-road capability to the 4Runner and Grand Cherokee.

[inco]

I think it's funny that journalists are still calling this an SUV.  Basing it on a front wheel drive car has moved it into the CUV category, and from what I can tell, it is abandoning true off-road capability to the 4Runner and Grand Cherokee.

The Escape is a CUV - both the Edge and the Explorer are far different animals and each is bigger than the other.

[G0dspd]

I think it's funny that journalists are still calling this an SUV.  Basing it on a front wheel drive car has moved it into the CUV category, and from what I can tell, it is abandoning true off-road capability to the 4Runner and Grand Cherokee.

Is the new Grand Cherokee still a true off-roader?

[macgyver700210]

I'm not saying it's bad or good (I am a ford guy), I'm just saying that it's not an SUV anymore.

The Grand Cherokee is still a true 4x4, because it has 4 low, the new Explorer doesn't, and is classified as 4WD, not 4x4.

www . digitaltrends . com / lifestyle / 2011-jeep-grand-cherokee-review