Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Maybe the third time's the charm.
The Explorer shares nothing with the Taurus X except a common ancestor platform. Even the front and rear suspension is different now not to mention all new engines, ride height, totally unique exterior and interior.
That's why you don't know what you're talking about.
And please help us understand why HEAT is not a problem with the PTO/PTU seals and high level of mechanical failures..
And what aspect of an Ecoboost engine is not "just" for more power. Ford's only claim that I can see is that it produces more power than a larger engine while consuming less fuel than the LARGER engine. What about the VERY SAME DFI engine but with ~12:1 CR but absent the turbo and produces muchly improved FE. Or actually still with the turbo but with a more throttled boost level so as to not blow up the engine.
Where do you get the information that running summer tires in wintertime isn't safer...?? That all depends on the wintertime climate and the driver's willingness to execute other traction measures should the need arise.
But you're correct about the new Explorer and the Taurus X, the new Explorer is probably closer to the FreeStyle.
It's the tires.
Ok, it's the driver.
It's been a decade since I left Anchorage but I still remember passing lots of 4WD rigs in the ditch with my FWD Tercel and my FWD minivans. Seems like most of the ditch diggers were in 4WD vehicles that they were overdriving.
If you only want to haul 5 people then the Venza F/awd with the 4 cylinder would be the way to go. Explorer "class" people hauling capability would be the Toyota Highlander but not before it gets upgraded to the new F/awd system. Value to Value I'd still choose the Sienna with the V6 and F/awd.
I suspect the new 4 cylinder in the Venza, ~190HP, will soon be upgraded with DFI, (~215 HP along with improved FE) in which case I will be looking forward to a Sienna F/awd with that same engine.
Now, just what have you got to look forward to at Ford...?
It is that simple, really.
But...
Spin-outs, intentional spin-outs, on a sandy beach are a LOT more fun in a RWD or R/awd.
Once filled the "cockpit" of my 911 Targa with sand driving, drifting(?), through the cloud of sand I had just thrown up.
But a few days later, if the bad weather holds, all I see is FWD's sideways in the road, or in the ditch, abandoned, many with "thrown" tire chains wrapped around the front axle/halfshaft.
It was something of a joy a few years ago to see all the BMW's MB's and Porsche's scattered about helter-skelter parked and abandoned on the slight incline into MS headquarters.
And that my friend, is why 4WD vehicles are patently unsafe in the snow. :P
The TV ads showing people driving up ski hills don't help any either. Or is that only Subarus?
I also don't see why people are getting all worked up about the new Explorer not being a truck. There are plenty of options out there for whatever a person's preference may be. When the Explorer was an SUV it never really gave you all that much space inside and didn't really get much better mileage than an Expedition or Tahoe.
No more Sport Trac either. May be a good time to buy one if you like the SUV/truck combo.
Ford Discontinues Explorer Sport Trac; Incentives Available (Edmunds Daily)
help us understand why HEAT is not a problem with the PTO/PTU seals and high level of mechanical failures..
Heat makes seals expand, not contract. Cold makes seals contract and lose their sealing ability. PTU seals are only failing in cold weather climates when it's cold. If heat was a problem there would be more failures in the Southwest and Southeast. Also - if heat was the cause then Ford would have just added extra cooling to fix the problem but they didn't. They replaced the seals with a new design. They're not stupid and they don't want to continue doing repairs on these things.
And what aspect of an Ecoboost engine is not "just" for more power. Ford's only claim that I can see is that it produces more power than a larger engine while consuming less fuel than the LARGER engine.
The Explorer's 2.0L engine puts out 250 lb/ft - which is the same as the competition's V6 engines but with better fuel economy. If the market wanted less power then Ford will have a 1.6L EB soon. The whole point of EB is to get more power from much less displacement and that applies to whatever engine output you need. To get the same output as a 2.0L EB engine without a turbo but with DI would require at least a 2.5L engine - maybe 2.7.
Where do you get the information that running summer tires in wintertime isn't safer.
Summer tires use soft rubber. In wintertime soft rubber turns to hard plastic. Hard plastic has NO grip on the road. Not having grip on the road is PATENTLY unsafe. Period. End of story. Ask ANY tire mfr. That's exactly why they make special winter tires - they use a different rubber compound that doesn't get hard in freezing temps and which have been PROVEN in test after test to provide more traction in cold weather.
I don't see how even you could possibly argue with that. But I'm sure you'll find a way.
Put an equally experienced driver, experienced in both "venues", in either a FWD or a RWD on a slippery inclined roadbed and the driver will automatically be more conservative with the FWD due to past learning experience.
The AWD system used in the 4Runner is questionable and under investigation by the Government.
So, other than a transfer case-based 4WD system and a frame on body chassis (which is still the norm for almost every off-road capable SUV/truck currently on the market), what else about the new 4Runner is "post-WWII technology"? Windshield wipers still work basically the same as they did in WWII, too
To my knowledge the only formidable off-roader in this class which doesn't have a truck-on-body chassis is the Jeep GC (although it still has a traditional-style transfer case)....but their long-running lack of reliability doesn't really allow myself or a lot of other consumers to consider one as an option.
Many of your comments about the 4Runner make me wonder if you've seen/driven the 2010 or 2011 model. Maybe you haven't seen Toyota's KDSS system, its hill decent system, or the terrain management system on the Trail model? Pretty leading-edge stuff, if you ask me.
And when did 4Runners (or any Toy for that matter) become "expensive to maintain"?
Personally, other than some of the new technology which Ford has been offering in its vehicles (Sync, etc) I'm not sure comparing a loaded 2011 Explorer and a loaded 2011 4Runner would really underscore either vehicles price...both have seating for 7, both have great interior room and loaded up, they're both about the same cost. Unless serious off-road capabilities were a "must have" (which would align a buyer with the Toy), I think these two vehicles will be in greater competition with one another than they have in the past with the old Explorers decline in overall sales.
Just my $.02
Tim
First Ride: Autoblog gets hot in Dubai with 2011 Ford Explorer
And as for the idea that summer tires work great in snow and ice....clearly the orig poster who believes this, he either doesn't know anything about tires, he doesn't read information about tires--or he's never driven any vehicle in snow/ice with summer tires on it. Preposterous!
Wwest has been making this argument about the Edge PTU which hardly ever sees any off road use, much less extended use. And the article doesn't say that overheating causes seal failure, which is the problem with the Edge. It was a bad seal - materials, design and/or installation and once properly fixed most have not reoccured - and they haven't added any cooling to it. Therefore lack of cooling is not the problem with the 07-09 Edge PTU seals.
Personally I suspect the "old" Explorer's decline in sales was more the result of the "ballooning" of the exterior without an increase in the wheelbase cognizant with the increased weight/size. That's also what more likely led to the rollover propensity that Ford engineers thought they could abate via tire deflation.
Then there is the issue of Ford "trucks" not being designed/outfitted to take advantage of current technological aspects, engines, transmission, radios, sync, etc.
I guess at Ford you have to be a "soft" SUV crossover to be eligible for a DOHC 24 valve V6 DFI engine.
I suspect that Ford engineers at one time, some time in the past, decided that the these failures could be somewhat alleviated via filling the PTO/PTU case to the "brim" with lubricating/cooling oil. Apparently that simply resulted in the expansion of theh oil due to HEAT and thereby BLOWN seals.
The Escape, and likely the Edge, have a KNOWN history of overheating problems. The earlier Escape and Mariner F/awd systems actually had a temperature sensor in the system to detect the rising heat level and advise the driver via an indicator light that the system was approaching an overheat condition.
If the driver chose to ignore the warning and the heat level continued to rise then the entire F/awd system would be disabled and the driver was cautioned by the owners manual that should that happen the best procedure would be to pull to the sude of the road and give the system the chance to cool down.
My guess would be that all Fords with this F/awd system will soon be adapted to this new PTO/PTU cooling system.
Apparently many drivers ignored the caution note and Ford paid the price via having to provide warranty service for failed PTO/PTU and rear clutch systems or else losing customer goodwill.
So the temperature detection system was added to first warn the driver that the F/awd system was being over used/abused and then disable the F/awd system entirely should the driver ignore the "early" warning.
Then as a last resort the manual switch was removed entirely in order to reduce the F/awd failure rate by reducing the overall usefulness of the F/awd system.
But the Ford F/awd PTO/PTU gearsets continued to fail, first the seals would fail due to the lubricating oil expansion rupturing them and subsequently the gearset itsself due to severe overheating.
Please take note that these F/awd systems will FULLY engage the rear drive under hard acceleration from a stop or low speed REGARDLESS of TRACTIVE conditions. It will even partially engage the rear drive clutch while turning during HARD acceleration. It out there that doesn't understand that these conditions, especially the latter one, are the very conditions that result in the more severe stress on the drive train, driveline windup and tire scrubbing.
So, given that knowledge why would the Ford engineers choose to design such an IDIOTIC system..?
A) First, there is currently NO way to detect/predict IMPENDING, FUTURE, wheelspin/slip resulting from engine torque, leading or lagging (engine compression braking).
C) Third, wheelspin/slip on a FWD or F/awd vehicle can turn HAZARDOUS, even DEADLY in just a few milliseconds if not QUICKLY abated.
The answer: PREVENTION.
Design a system that PRE-EMPTIVELY apportions engine torque to ALL traction surfaces at times must likely to otherwise result in a threat to life and limp.
While all along Mazda was using engine coolant to solve this problem with the very same F/awd system.
Now, FINALLY, Ford comes to the "table".
Catch 22, taking out a few ounces of fluid reduces the cooling capability.
Does the Ford PTO/PTU not have "cooling fins" already..?
If not that would even be more idiotic on Ford's part, my '01 F/awd RX300 VC (Viscous clutch/coupling) case even has those.
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.
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........
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.
The horse was dead long ago. Let's move on.
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.
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.
Is the cargo capacity your primary buying motive? If that's the case, sounds like you've already made your decision!
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.
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.
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.