Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

2011 Ford Explorer



  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    And that's exactly why my F/awd '01 RX300 always runs on nice and quite running, comfortably riding, SUMMER use ONLY Bridgestone Turanza tires, has 1.5" wheel spacers all around (rear tire chains cannot be fitted absent the spacers) and I carry a set of tire chains throughout the year.

    I carry two sets of tire chains during the winter and the first set goes on the REAR and then the second set on the front but only at times of CERTAIN need.

    Here on the eastside of Seattle the weather is consistently such that the clear majority of the time my summer tires provide more traction than any wintertime specialty tire.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    PTO cooling is not rocket science. As you say even Mazda already had it. If that was the root cause of the seal failures then a) Ford would have easily seen this in testing and b) they would have fixed this at some point to resolve the problem.

    But then again you obviously know more than Ford engineers. After all - they still think that winter tires are safer in winter than summer tires. Idiots........ ;)
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Again, history of the Escape and Mariner F/awd system indicates that while the Ford engineers quite clearly knew of the drive train design shortcomings they refused, for some reason, to take the appropreate corrective action, "patchwork" only.

    We must assume that at each "step" in the way they were of the thought that the problem was solved.

    Look at Toyota's history, beginning in 1998, with their transaxle design problems resulting from the "abolition" of the old line pressure control system. Problems that persist until this very day, with no solution in sight.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    Except that even you said Mazda already had a working cooling system in production on the CX, so it was readily available to Ford had they wanted to use it.

    The horse was dead long ago. Let's move on.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    edited August 2010
    "..Except that..." only makes the Ford engineers moreso the idiots.

    On the other hand the CX-7 came to market years after the Ford Escape/Mariner/Tribute had been commited to design and in production.

    So maybe the Mazda engineers,starting with a clean sheet design, simply learned from the Ford engineer's mistakes.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    Never mind - I'll just go bang my head into a brick wall. It's more satisfying.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Don't give up, please..

    The more you challenge me the deeper I dig/study/learn to prove my point. I'm sure both sides have an audience so let's keep them happy.
  • I need a question answered...... the total cargo space specs for the new 2011 Explorer is listed on Edmunds as approx. 81 cu.ft, the Chevy Traverse is listed as 116 cu.ft. and the Ford Expedition is listed as approx. 108 cu.ft. Now there is no way there is 7% more cargo space in the Chevy Traverse as compared to the Expediton....... what goes here? I looked at GM website specs for the Chevy Traverse and they have the cargo space figure of 116 cu.ft. foot noted, but do not explain anywhere what the footnote (3) is. I currently own a Ford Expediton and recently test drove a Chevy Traverse and the Expedition no question has more cargo space. Do the different companies play games with these numbers, or measure them in a different way? I am going to replace my Expediton with either a Chevy Traverse or the new 2011 Explorer, which is listed as having 81 cu.ft of cargo space. I just find it hard to believe the Traverse has 43% more cargo space than the Explorer which is about the same size. Can anyone shed some light on this subject.
  • I just got off the website. It lists cargo capacity as 80.7 cubic feet behind the first row of seats. I also checked to see what the estimated mpg listing was. Not one mention of that. Since Ford skirts that issue, I can only imagine that it isn't as stingy on gas as the Traverse. If you throw in the 5 year/100,000 mile powertrain coverage, it probably isn't a fair fight.

    Is the cargo capacity your primary buying motive? If that's the case, sounds like you've already made your decision!
  • Cargo space is not my primary goal........ the point is I DO NOT BELIEVE the posted cargo space of the Traverse (116 cu ft). The Traverse is only 8 inches longer than the 2011 Explorer and the Traverse is 1/2 inch less in width than the Explorer........ so how in the world can you have 44% more cargo space in the Traverse?

    I was leaning toward the Traverse until last year, however since the bankruptcy I am leaning toward a Ford SUV......... I do not like the fact the GM screwed all of those "mom and pop" bond holders. GM sold bonds for years in low denominations of under $1k to the public. It just does not sit well with me that they got their slate wiped clean at the expense of many retired people that relied on them for income. I do own 2 GM vehicles at the present time.......1986 Fiero GT and a 2002 Saturn. The Saturn needed a valve job at $69k and of course GM would do nothing for me...... so it would be hard for me to buy a Traverse, although it is a nice vehicle.
  • loachloach Posts: 246
    I think I can shed some light on this because I've been struggling a bit with the same questions. I currently own a GMC Acadia with the 116.9 cu. ft. claimed cargo space. It is quite spacious, but I'm looking to replace it because it has been a troublesome vehicle and I also have fundamental problem with Government Motors. But that aside, here's what I've found in digging into the cargo numbers.

    Yes, I suspect that GM might be fudging/gaming the numbers somehow. Car and Driver provides several "real-world" cargo tests when they review vehicles. One is the "beer case" test, where they see how many beer cases they can fit behind each row. Another is the "plywood" test, where they measure the largest piece of plywood they can fit with the back rows folded and the hatch closed. Consumer Reports also does a "real-world" test where they measure the volume of the largest rectangular "box" made of telescoping pipe that they can fit in behind the 2nd row with the hatch closed. Unfortunately, none of these tests are yet available for the 2011 Explorer, but here's some data from some competitors that shows that the Acadia/Traverse's 117 cubes doesn't necessarily translate into more real-world space. Note that I couldn't find numbers for some measures for the regular length Expedition, so I threw in the Nissan Armada instead just because I've shopped it.

    Manufacturer claimed cargo space (cu. ft.):
    Acadia 116.9
    Pilot 87.0
    CX-9 101.0
    Armada 97.1

    C&D "Beer Case" test (# behind F/M/R seat)
    Acadia 56/30/8
    Pilot 58/32/7
    CX-9 47/22/4
    Armada 61/35/10

    C&D "Plywood" test (inches)
    Acadia 85X48
    Pilot 78X48.3
    CX-9 81X46.5
    Armada 81X49

    CR "Pipe Box" test (cu. ft)
    Acadia 48.5
    Pilot 48.0
    CX-9 37.5
    Armada 58.5

    Note that the boxier shaped vehicles (Pilot and Armada) compete very favorably in the real-world tests despite having smaller claimed cargo capacity than the curvier CX-9 and Acadia. At one point, I saw the minimum length/width of the 2011 Explorer's cargo area listed as 74.4 X 44.9 on C&D's website - I think it's since been deleted so I have no idea whether it was accurate. But if it was, I suspect the Explorer's real-world space might be comparable to the CX-9, but lagging pretty far behind the Acadia/Traverse, Pilot and large SUVs such as the Armada, Expedition, etc. If you're looking for a non-GM CUV with real-world space comparable to the Traverse, the Pilot might be a better bet (it's where I'm presently leaning).

    Sorry for the long post, but I figured why not share some of my anal-retentive number-crunching. ;)
  • loachloach Posts: 246
    Another measure to look at is passenger volume. Here are those numbers (cu. ft):

    Acadia 154.0
    Pilot 152.7
    CX-9 139.0
    Armada 188.0

    2011 Explorer - 151.7 per Ford's specs. So maybe the Explorer won't be too far off the leaders.

    How can the Acadia have only 1% more passenger volume than the Pilot, yet have 34% more cargo capacity? I smell BS.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    The reason fuel economy figures haven't been posted is they don't have them yet from the EPA. You can't advertise them until they're certified. Expect them to be class leading based on previous Ford efforts.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Or Ford simply doesn't wish to publically expose just how HORRID the "EcoBoost" gas guzzling engines are when compared to a N/A DFI engine of equal displacement.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    Or you have no idea what you're talking about.
  • Hey loach, thanks for the interesting and informative reply. The "beer case" test makes sense......56 cases for the Acadia and 58 for the Pilot which reports about the same cargo space as the 2011 Explorer. So GM must be gaming these numbers. I expect Ford is planning to compete with GM with the Explorer vs the Acadia, Traverse and Envoy regarding size, mpg and cargo space. I will not consider a [non-permissible content removed] car, so the Pilot is out...... I always try to buy an American car/suv from an American Company. I figure I can get another year out of my 1997 Expedition, so will at least wait to view the new Explorer in the "flesh" so to speak. I probably will not decide to purchase a new SUV till next spring or summer. Besides, Ford's products have been good to me over the years and they are building an even better product these days. Thanks again for your post...... you would think that "cargo space" should be measured the same by all companies...... just like mpg.
  • Your right about the fuel eco figures. I got a reply from Ford yesterday from their marketing people which basically said the testing has been done, but EPA has not signed off on it yet so they can not advertise the mpg yet. I expect the Explorer 2011 edition to have a slightly better mpg than the Chevy Traverse, since it is slightly newer technology. The V6 in the Explorer is a slightly smaller engine which gives more horsepower (slightly more) than the Traverse.
  • loachloach Posts: 246
    Don't want to start a whole "what is an American car?" debate here, but I'll just note that the Pilot is built in Lincoln, Alabama. I do like the idea of buying a Ford too, but my gut tells me from the number crunching I've done and the fact that the Explorer 3rd row is a 2-seater that the Explorer is just going to be a little too small for me compared to the GM Lambdas or Pilot. One thing I've noticed about Ford's Explorer marketing communications so far is they have not really mentioned the Lambdas as a competitor. More often vehicles like the Highlander get mentioned that have significantly less real-world cargo space (48/24/2 C&D beer cases). Cargo space is a primary concern for me because of all the crap I have to haul back and forth from my kids' colleges.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Twice a year doesn't really warrant driving a BMW all year 'round.
  • loachloach Posts: 246
    BMW? What are you talking about?
Sign In or Register to comment.