2011 Ford Explorer finally revealed...

[Stew]

Originally Posted by syr74

No explanation needed, I'm not a fan of the current Edge either. Interior quality is horrible with the only bright spots being decent interior space and styling that isn't quite as bland as some competitors.

The new model addresses the existing mediocre driveline and interior...I'll be curious to see if that is enough to make this particular car competitive since, IMO, Ford has been seriously lagging behind GM in crossovers for some time. In fact, until the Edge refresh and the news of this new Explorer the only crossover bright spot at Ford for me was the Escape, which I think it arguable the only true compact, ute wagon left on the market. And even that would be outdated were it not the only player in the game.

I have always had mix feelings about the Edge, I really do like this explorer though. For those complaining that it dilutes the explorer name, how? It never was a capable offroader and the ones I have driven (all 1st/2nd gens, never drove the newer ones which already had fully independant suspensions BTW) have all been rolling the corner, numb at the wheel, and the not the most trackable things around, IMHO the Jeep Cherokee we had (and the 01 Grand CHerokee we do have) drive MUCH better and they both have SRAs rear AND front. Besides with sales dropping from over 400k a year to just over 50k a year, the old Explorer order had lost it's luster. I think this will sell well and probably end up killing the flex which basically operates in the same niche.

Syr74 I 100% disagree with the Escape being the last of it's breed, I see the Forrester, Patriot, and Suzuki VItara operating in the same market and the last 2 even offer low range gears for their 4x4 systems and even the base Patriot 4x4s have a 4wd lock feature that works really well. I also see the Toyota Rav4 in the same bracket as the Escape with more traditional SUV type styling, not to mention the escapes corporate twins the Mariner and Tribute (is the Tribute even still built?).

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Stew

I have always had mix feelings about the Edge, I really do like this explorer though. For those complaining that it dilutes the explorer name, how? It never was a capable offroader and the ones I have driven (all 1st/2nd gens, never drove the newer ones which already had fully independant suspensions BTW) have all been rolling the corner, numb at the wheel, and the not the most trackable things around, IMHO the Jeep Cherokee we had (and the 01 Grand CHerokee we do have) drive MUCH better and they both have SRAs rear AND front. Besides with sales dropping from over 400k a year to just over 50k a year, the old Explorer order had lost it's luster. I think this will sell well and probably end up killing the flex which basically operates in the same niche.

Even if the old explorer wasn't that great off road, it's still going to be superior to this Taurus based crossover when leaving the pavement. Plus, minimum tow rating has dropped by 3000 lbs, and max towing by 2000. Sure, arguments can be made that most people don't need all that utility, but that ignores my point: the new Explorer is not an SUV, its a crossover.

[97one]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Even if the old explorer wasn't that great off road, it's still going to be superior to this Taurus based crossover when leaving the pavement. Plus, minimum tow rating has dropped by 3000 lbs, and max towing by 2000. Sure, arguments can be made that most people don't need all that utility, but that ignores my point: the new Explorer is not an SUV, its a crossover.

It is a CROSSOVER. I can't see that anyone would think it is a SUV unless they know absolutely nothing about vehicles.
That's for sure !!

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 97one

It is a CROSSOVER. I can't see that anyone would think it is a SUV unless they know absolutely nothing about vehicles.
That's for sure !!

Yet most of the reviews I've seen have called it an SUV. I don't get it.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Yet most of the reviews I've seen have called it an SUV. I don't get it.

They're used to calling the old one an SUV. That's my best guess.

[Stew]

The crossover is the Modern SUV, like it or not. Truth is, you probably don't even need 2 hands to count the SUVs now that aren't crossovers. I think we are just nitpicking on the name, there is no problem with GM replacing the trailblazer with the Traverse because it has a different name, but because the explorer keeps the name that is al wrong? We are talking taking a legendary name like Wrangler, Chevelle or Mustang and putting it on something that is blasphemes, it is an explorer...... It was a lackluster vehicle then whatever you decide to call it......

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by Stew

The crossover is the Modern SUV, like it or not. Truth is, you probably don't even need 2 hands to count the SUVs now that aren't crossovers. I think we are just nitpicking on the name, there is no problem with GM replacing the trailblazer with the Traverse because it has a different name, but because the explorer keeps the name that is al wrong? We are talking taking a legendary name like Wrangler, Chevelle or Mustang and putting it on something that is blasphemes, it is an explorer...... It was a lackluster vehicle then whatever you decide to call it......

That's sort of what I was thinking. Suv's are dead for all the makes unless you want the monsters that chevy and ford still sell as far as the tahoe and the expedition. What make's a crossover a cossover? My traverse is no offroad machine ,but it does have over a 5,000lbs tow rating.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Stew

The crossover is the Modern SUV, like it or not. Truth is, you probably don't even need 2 hands to count the SUVs now that aren't crossovers. I think we are just nitpicking on the name, there is no problem with GM replacing the trailblazer with the Traverse because it has a different name, but because the explorer keeps the name that is al wrong? We are talking taking a legendary name like Wrangler, Chevelle or Mustang and putting it on something that is blasphemes, it is an explorer...... It was a lackluster vehicle then whatever you decide to call it......

Ford can do what ever they want to the Explorer and I don't care about that. My issue is calling a crossover an SUV. They aren't SUV's. Body on frame + RWD basis = SUV. Unibody and FWD = CUV. Things get a little mixed up with unibody + RWD, the jury is still out on those. Regardless, there are 0 SUV's that are crossovers. Every SUV is an SUV. Every CUV is a CUV.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Ford can do what ever they want to the Explorer and I don't care about that. My issue is calling a crossover an SUV. They aren't SUV's. Body on frame + RWD basis = SUV. Unibody and FWD = CUV. Things get a little mixed up with unibody + RWD, the jury is still out on those. Regardless, there are 0 SUV's that are crossovers. Every SUV is an SUV. Every CUV is a CUV.

What about the Grand Cherokee? That has always been built as a unibody and it always was considered and still is considered an SUV. It's really what started the term SUV.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by motorhead

What about the Grand Cherokee? That has always been built as a unibody and it always was considered and still is considered an SUV. It's really what started the term SUV.

I covered them, sorta:

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Ford can do what ever they want to the Explorer and I don't care about that. My issue is calling a crossover an SUV. They aren't SUV's. Body on frame + RWD basis = SUV. Unibody and FWD = CUV. Things get a little mixed up with unibody + RWD, the jury is still out on those. Regardless, there are 0 SUV's that are crossovers. Every SUV is an SUV. Every CUV is a CUV.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I covered them, sorta:

Well, that's what I was taking about. How could the jury still be out on those?
They are reason we even have the term SUV ,and they are what for many years all the other SUV makers where trying to measure up to. I believe the only reason the name changed from SUV to crossover was because SUVs were getting bad press for many reasons and the car makers had to reinvent the SUV without calling it an SUV thus the crossover.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by motorhead

Well, that's what I was taking about. How could the jury still be out on those?
They are reason we even have the term SUV ,and they are what for many years all the other SUV makers where trying to measure up to. I believe the only reason the name changed from SUV to crossover was because SUVs were getting bad press for many reasons and the car makers had to reinvent the SUV without calling it an SUV thus the crossover.

Ya know I have never thought about that but it makes sense. When the CUV term came around SUVs were seen as tipsy vehicles, easy to rollover, and gas hogs. Now the CUV is seen as more driver and gas friendly.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by motorhead

Well, that's what I was taking about. How could the jury still be out on those?
They are reason we even have the term SUV ,and they are what for many years all the other SUV makers where trying to measure up to. I believe the only reason the name changed from SUV to crossover was because SUVs were getting bad press for many reasons and the car makers had to reinvent the SUV without calling it an SUV thus the crossover.

Well, at the time there was no such thing as a crossover either. But if I had to call a Grand Cherokee one thing or the other, I'd go with an SUV since it has the driving characteristics of one and not of a car based crossover.

Crossovers debuted about 10 years ago so I wouldn't say they're a reaction to the negative opinion about the SUVs that began about 2 years ago when gas prices went through the roof.

[Sax1031]

I'd say the negative feelings towards SUVs started more than 2 years ago.