Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

2011 Ford Explorer

1…457910…14

Comments

  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,304
    Never thought of that.
    I should have realized it was the different trim around the rear lift gate that made all the difference.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Don't be silly.

    M-E-R-C-U-R-Y M-O-U-N-T-A-I-N-E-E-R
    F-O-R-D E-X-P-L-O-R-E-R

    It's the extra letters.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Don't forget that public opinion, knowledge, brand recognition, is a part of the "mix".

    Mention "Mercury Mountaineer" and no one automatically thinks "rollover".....
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Agreed. That perception thing.
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    The case was a lawsuit against Ford and U-Haul. U-Haul was found at fault and to this day seems to still mad at Ford. IMHO, the Explorer is the volume model so perhaps they are hoping that Explorer owners will go to Ford and complain.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited January 2011
    I think U-Haul is just shooting themselves in the foot.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,304
    You probably right, but it is a strange way for a business out to make money to shape policy.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    This is nothing more than management listening to the corporate lawyers instead of using common sense.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,304
    Seems like a good strategy. Give up 4+ million potential customers, who would actually use the product you are providing. :confuse:
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    But the lawyer says it's successful because they avoided potential lawsuits. Apparently nobody else is smart enough to challenge it.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,304
    From my perspective, it has led to me buying a 'whale size' cargo box to put on the roof rack, or borrowing a flat 2 x 5 rack that plugs into the trailer hitch, that I can stack stuff on.
    I'm sure Penske and Ryder have gotten some benefit, too.
    Adding an '11 Explorer would work, and next fall we can let the '02 go 'Free Willie'.
    I get attached to my old stuff, so although logical, it would be tough to do.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    EcoBoost/TwinForce Gas-Guzzler.

    Where do you get the data for the 2.0L EcoBoost guzzling gas? This is the second time you have stated it without backup.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    No, it shows the idiocy of public opinion. In the public's "eye" the Explorer is prone to rollover, tire blow-out, etc, an accident occurs, whatever the cause, involving a Explorer and the first action is to call a lawyer, if one doesn't call you first.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited February 2011
    The standard engine compression ratio for a direct injection engine is in the range of 11-12:1. In order to accommodate BOOST at those relatively RARE times of need the EcoBoost/TwinForce engine CR is derated, ~10:1, for normal cruise.

    So 98-99% of the time you will be running in derated/detuned mode with lower FE than with a non-turbo DFI engine.

    My guess is that before, or about the time the Explorer I4 is introduced there will be an option for a smaller N/A DFI V6 but with 12:1 CR and HP equal to the current N/A non-DFI V6 but even better FE.

    Might even include a couple of throttle-body injectors to overcome the EGR buildup in the intake manifold and valves.
  • occupant1occupant1 Member Posts: 412
    I don't like it. It doesn't feel like an Explorer. I didn't take the time to drive one because the dealer I happened to be at turned me off (pushy, thinks a 48K Limited is appropriate for our family when I wanted to see a 28K base model, oh you can afford it, sure you can sir).

    The first thing I noticed is the way the dash and seats are shaped. I felt like I was sitting in a crossover that is trying too hard to be edgy and vibrant. The seat is high and shaped oddly and the dash feels low. The gauges seem too low to be able to see them while driving. It's just shaped wrong.

    The next thing I noticed was the interior is too bright and nothing matches anything. The Light Stone Limited with leather and 2 sunroofs looked ridiculous. Silver here, gray there, cream over thataway, stainless trim mixed in, some chrome, some wood, it was awful. Not gonna happen. It'll have to be black. I can handle some silver and wood with black but it's way too busy in the other interior colors.

    Third row seating looked cramped but wasn't too bad. I'm 5'11" and 270 and I could deal with it for a couple hours at a time but don't ask me to go to New York. Second row is wonderful and the first is also but I'm hoping the basic trim in cloth on a base model will be less styled/shaped like something that ought to be in a Mustang.

    17 city, 25 highway. C&D averaged what, 18.4 in mixed, their numbers are always lower than what I get. They got 14mpg in a 13/18 rated Durango and I get 18-19. So low to mid-20s would be nice. I bet the Turbo four won't do that well if it's constantly loaded with kids and things. The V6 should be more consistent over a wider range of loads.

    I do plan to test drive one of these with my wife in a couple of weeks and I hope I'm able to find a base model to test drive so I'm not so turned off by the uplevel trim mismatching and the oddly shaped seats.
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    So basically you're just making presumptions and have nothing to back up your claim that the Ecoboost is a gas guzzler.
  • fawltytowers44fawltytowers44 Member Posts: 58
    edited February 2011
    I just spent three days covering more than three hundred miles in a rented Explorer FWD Limited (V6) with dual moon roofs; it only had 36 miles on it when I picked it up. It was a great treat to drive this long awaited car. I kept waiting to feel the FWD unpleasantness I usually find in FWD cars and if I had not known it was FWD I would never have suspected it. I drove it fairly hard in town, on the highway and in the hills and found it to be a very fine performing vehicle in every respect with no loss of control at any speed or under any condition – something I can not say about other cars I have driven lately. The advanced, voice recognition computer control system took a little getting used to (I have been driving for more than 50 years with the older systems!) but loved it once I learned it. With the multi adjustable seats and pedals the driver’s position can be custom tailored to most anyone's needs. Quibbles include; my activating the hazard lights several times by accident while touching icons on the computer screen, even though the button is fairly recessed and not on the computer screen - I think it may have more to do with me than the car. Also, the rear seat coat hanging device needs to be bigger. Build quality and materials were excellent and equal to or better than any of the cars I have rented in the past year, including a Lexus RX 450. The Explorer is a really great car overall and a terrific achievement for Ford!!
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    Who did you rent it from?
  • fawltytowers44fawltytowers44 Member Posts: 58
    I rented it from Interprise. Explorer's are in very shot supply and they had to get theirs from another office somewhere north of here, so be prepared to to wait to get one. I paid $110 a day for it.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    edited February 2011
    The standard engine compression ratio for a direct injection engine is in the range of 11-12:1. In order to accommodate BOOST at those relatively RARE times of need the EcoBoost/TwinForce engine CR is derated, ~10:1, for normal cruise.

    For one, I've never seen a turbocharged engine that didn't have less compression than the non-turbo variant, so I guess what you have against the Ecoboost can be said about any turbocharged gasoline engine.

    Considering the Ecoboost v6 is being used primarily in heavy vehicles and it develops peak torque as low as 1,500 rpm, it will be using some level of boost quite often.

    Will it get the same mileage as a 3.5 DI n/a v6, probably not, but it will produce a lot more power and still get 20% better fuel economy than a v8 with similar power and that's the point you obviously don't get. It will offer 2-3 mpg improvement while offering more power vs the 5.0v8 in the F150.

    You may think the Ecoboost is only attractive to the immature boy racer types, but from my perspective it's intriguing. The 5.4 300hp/365ft-lbs engine in my 07 Expedition provides adequate power and rarely gets above 17mpg highway. I tow quite a bit and would love more torque and better fuel economy. If the Ecoboost v6 can reliably offer a 20% fuel economy improvement while also offering 15% more power (particularly 420 ft-lbs across a wide rpm range) it's a win/win in my book.
  • fawltytowers44fawltytowers44 Member Posts: 58
    Hi robr2. I think you are right. I was a mechanic for many years and also raced for several years. The information presented by west's post is not consistent with my experience and understanding, nor that of anyone's I am familiar with. I expect actual real world performance and mileage experience to be more in line with the generally high expectations for this engine.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    None of Willard's information is consistent with anyone's experience and understanding, including the laws of physics.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Are you really willing to go on record as saying a 3L DFI engine with CR of ~10:1 will get FE as good as a 3L DFI engine with a CR of 12:1...?
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "..making presumptions.."

    No, absolutely NOT.

    Even an idiot would conclude that absent the need to accommodate turbo boost thereby increasing the CR to 12:1 would not only yield an improvement in FE but also HP/torque.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "...used primarily in heavy vehicles...."

    Like, say, the Taurus SHO...?

    "...peak torque as low as 1,500 rpm.."

    Yes, but only at/with WOT.

    "..it will be using some level of boost quite often.."

    No, with only partial cylinder "fills", part throttle, there would be no reason for BOOST so my guess would be that the wastegate will be fully open.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Even an idiot would conclude that absent the need to accommodate turbo boost thereby increasing the CR to 12:1 would not only yield an improvement in FE but also HP/torque.

    Sure, but not close to the levels achieved with boost.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    edited February 2011
    "...peak torque as low as 1,500 rpm.."

    Yes, but only at/with WOT.

    "..it will be using some level of boost quite often.."

    No, with only partial cylinder "fills", part throttle, there would be no reason for BOOST so my guess would be that the wastegate will be fully open.

    I'm convinced you have zero experience with turbocharged engines gas or diesel. Whether you went to UTI or slept in a Holiday Inn

    Every one I've owned or driven produce boost at throttle inputs that are not even remotely close to WOT.

    Sure max torque generated at 1,500 rpm would be a WOT, but that doesn't mean at 1/2 throttle a turbocharged engine is not producing more power than a n/a engine, because it will be using some boost, it's not all or nothing.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    edited February 2011
    Are you really willing to go on record as saying a 3L DFI engine with CR of ~10:1 will get FE as good as a 3L DFI engine with a CR of 12:1...?

    Are you willing to go on record claiming a 3.5L DFI engine with 12.1 compression or more can produce more torque vs. a 5L 32v v8 with SFI at a usable RPM <4k

    BTW, Porsche uses a 3.6L 6 cylinder with 12.5:1 compression and DI. It produces 300HP and 295 ft-lbs of torque. Yep that's better than the 3.5 Ecoboost.
    Plus in the Panamera with AWD it gets 18/26mpg. That's a huge improvement over the Taurus SHOs 17/25 with it's brick like drag coefficient and extra 300lbs vs. the Porsche. Also, the Panamera us a 7 speed trans vs a 6 speed in the Taurus.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    You're wasting your fingers.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,304
    When I looked at the Ford website, I also thought the 'Light Stone' interior had a lot of colors and also prefer the black one.
    I have an older Eddie Bauer model and everything is a variation on cream/brown/tan.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • iwant12iwant12 Member Posts: 269
    A nice review, thanks. How did you find the seat comfort and outward visability? I have a hard time digesting FWD.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Why would any automotive design engineer intentionally provide BOOST at the same time the throttle plate is being used to restrict the intake airflow....?

    Burden the engine with exhaust flow restriction just to produce BOOST that can't get by the throttle plate.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Why would any automotive design engineer intentionally provide BOOST at the same time the throttle plate is being used to restrict the intake airflow....?

    I'm not an engineer and haven't a clue, but I do know certain intake restrictions/pluming is used for low rpm torque. But I've driven a few DI gas turbocharged 4 cylinders and they were way more powerful at part throttle vs. the non turbo versions and it was obvious they were generating boost at less than WOT. Turbo lag was almost undetectable. I couldn't tell you what the actual position of the throttle plate is as they are all electronically controlled on these engines.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    My argument about poor FE is based on constant speed cruise, relatively constant speed, say driving along the freeway at 65 with CC set.

    So yes, anytime acceleration is desired, an engine torque level cognizant with acceleration, the engine is most likely to be "on-boost".
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,304
    If what you are saying about the CR in a non boosted engine and a boosted one is true, why would any manufacturer bother?
    The EPA numbers are everything. It is a low stress test.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    Sorry to be off-topic as it relates to the Explorer but this NA vs. turbo discussion is interesting to me. I have a 2008 Taurus with the NA 3.5 and a 2010 Lincoln MKS with the 3.5 ecoboost. They have identical gearing.

    While the MKS is 400 lbs heavier and has AWD, it delivers MPG within a mile per gallon of the Taurus in real world driving - whether it is constant highway cruising, city stop & go, or any combination of the two. In terms of acceleration, the MKS would go past the Taurus so fast, it would suck its windshield out. Compared to my old V8 LS, the MKS would absolutely brutalize it in terms of both performance and fuel economy. The ecoboost 3.5 is the real deal.

    Of course a big benefit of the ecoboost is performance and low-end torque. You certainly do not need WOT to feel it or to get boost. In fact, I think one of the reasons my MKS does so well on fuel is that it can carry a higher gear than our Taurus to do the same job. For example, passing on a two-lane highway, the MKS can do it more quickly in 6th gear than the Taurus can with a downshift to 5th or even 4th.

    Both run at about 1500 RPM at 60 MPH in 6th. The MKS will accelerate strongly without a kick-down while the Taurus will not. Even around town, not using the manual shift function, the MKS will get into the higher gears sooner than the Taurus while still providing faster acceleration. Keeping the RPM lower while at the same ground speed uses less fuel, not to mention less engine noise. A huge benefit of low-end torque is the relaxed way the car accelerates and cruises - it is not just for boy-racers, although I might be guilty of that sometimes.
  • occupant1occupant1 Member Posts: 412
    This is encouraging news. But the Ecoboost slated for the Explorer, isn't it the 4-cylinder 2.0L unit?
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Sorry to be off-topic as it relates to the Explorer but this NA vs. turbo discussion is interesting to me. I have a 2008 Taurus with the NA 3.5 and a 2010 Lincoln MKS with the 3.5 ecoboost. They have identical gearing.

    While the MKS is 400 lbs heavier and has AWD, it delivers MPG within a mile per gallon of the Taurus in real world driving - whether it is constant highway cruising, city stop & go, or any combination of the two. In terms of acceleration, the MKS would go past the Taurus so fast, it would suck its windshield out. Compared to my old V8 LS, the MKS would absolutely brutalize it in terms of both performance and fuel economy. The ecoboost 3.5 is the real deal.

    Thanks for the post. I'll be looking to replace my 07 Expedition within 2 years. I'd love to see the EB offered in the F150 to end up in the Expedition. I might even decide to switch to a PU. Regardless, the EB certainly has my attention. All of that low rpm torque would be great for towing.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    This is encouraging news. But the Ecoboost slated for the Explorer, isn't it the 4-cylinder 2.0L unit?

    Yes, so from what I've read it won't have the HP of the N/A 3.5, but it will have favorable torque output and I don't think it's being offered initially with AWD. So it should offer class leading fuel economy in a 7 passenger SUV and decent performance. I don't see them selling many configured that way though.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    You just MADE my point...

    Think about how much better your Taurus' FE might be if that N/A engine could have the benefits of DFI with its 12:1 compression ratio. 20-30% improved FE and more HP/torque...?
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited February 2011
    A derated/detuned 2.0L I4 providing motive force for the HEAVY 2011 Ford Explorer...??

    Think about that...the 2.3L I4/stick in my '93 Ranger, empty, driver only, struggles, absent a serious level of downshifting, to climb even the slightest incline.

    Gonna spend a LOT of time ON-BOOST......
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    edited February 2011
    Think about how much better your Taurus' FE might be if that N/A engine could have the benefits of DFI with its 12:1 compression ratio. 20-30% improved FE and more HP/torque...?

    I'd like to see evidence where you get a 20-30% increase in fuel economy and power simply with DI, if you use smaller displacement with DI, you still lose torque. That's not to say newer designed DI engines with advanced valve systems, along with more efficient transmissions aren't on the way. But even Toyota has announced plans for Turbocharged direct injected engines. I don't understand your bias against turbo charging.

    Cadillac is using direct injected engines in the CTS and is showing no where near the numbers you're claiming.

    The 3.0 DI v6 offers HP similar to Ford's 3.5 but it's down on torque. FE for the rwd 3.0 CTS is 27mpg, still short of the 28mpg rating for the non-DI 3.5 in a heavier fwd Taurus.

    Ford, VW, BMW, Nissan, GM, Hyundai, and I'm sure I'm forgetting others have been using DI and turbo charging with good results (OK, I know BMW has had some reliability issues with fuel pumps).

    I've shown you several examples that dispute your claims, yet I haven't seen one example in the real world from you that substantiates your claims.

    A small displacment high compression DI engine simply will not produce enough torque for a heavy vehicle. I don't think anyone wants DI 4cyl in 4klb Taurus. Hyundai's DI 2.4l produces 184 ft-lbs of torque, that's not going to work in a car like the Taurus that weights nearly 1k lbs heavier than a Sonota. The Sonota does get about 30% better fuel economy than a Taurus, but it's a much smaller car weights 25% less and has a DI engine which produces about 25% less power.

    Ford will be using a 2.0l DI 4 cylinder in the 2012 Focus. It will produce 160hp and 146 ft-lbs of torque with 12.0:1 compression. Sorry, give me the turbo version.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    A derated/detuned 2.0L I4 providing motive force for the HEAVY 2011 Ford Explorer...??

    Think about that...the 2.3L I4/stick in my '93 Ranger, empty, driver only, struggles, absent a serious level of downshifting, to climb even the slightest incline.

    Gonna spend a LOT of time ON-BOOST......

    Don't even bring up Ford's old 2.3 boat anchor. It has nothing incommon with the new 2.0L turbo except that they share the same number of cylinders.

    Detuned? How so, the 2.0DI 4cyl Ford has produces 160hp, the 2.0 DI turbo will produce nearly double the torque at a very usable low rpm.

    Then again I understand where your coming from now. You drive one of the slowest vehicles on the road. I had a 2.3 Ranger once for a loaner from the Ford dealer. I drove out of the parking lot and turned around and demanded something tolerable, IMO it was so slow it bordered on being unsafe.

    One more thing. Wwest, have you ever driven a vehicle with a DI turbo 4? I've driven a few and everyone has been impressive in terms of refinement and power delivery. But I'm willing to give up a few MPG for more power.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Member Posts: 815
    You just MADE my point...

    I learned a long time ago not to read much of what you post so I am not sure what your point is...

    If the NA 3.5 had DI and 12:1 compression, would there be an improvement in performance and FE? Sure. However, it would still not perform like the twin turbo ecoboost. Currently the NA 3.5 has 10.3:1 CR and the ecoboost has 10:1. If you dropped the Turbos from the ecoboost but raised the compression to 12:1, you would have specs closer to the Cadillac CTS engine - although I do not recall the Cad's CR off the top of my head.

    The Cadillac CTS with its DI 3.6 develops 273 ft/lbs of torque at 5200 RPM and has only marginally better fuel economy ratings than a MUCH HEAVIER Taurus SHO or MKS ecoboost and lower FE than the NA Taurus without DI. Torque on the car-version ecoboost is 350 at 1500. On the F150, it is 420, also at a lower usable RPM.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "...But I'm will to give up a few MPG for more power..."

    But many of us are not...!

    Why is Ford shipping the new 2011 Explorer with a N/A V6 that is NOT DFI...? They clearly have the technological and design capability.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "..The Cadillac CTS.."

    The 3.6L DI engine is rated at 18/26 and the 3.0L SFI engine at 18/27.

    Simple math indicates that if that 3.6L DI engine were a 3.0L DI engine the numbers would be more in the range of 21/30.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Simple math indicates that if that 3.6L DI engine were a 3.0L DI engine the numbers would be more in the range of 21/30.

    Well take it up with GM then. GM is using a DI 3.0 and DI 3.6L v6s and the EPA FE ratings are 18/27 for both the 3.0 and 3.6 DI engines. CR on the 3.0DI is 11.7:1 and CR of the 3.6 DI 11.3:1
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    edited February 2011
    Why is Ford shipping the new 2011 Explorer with a N/A V6 that is NOT DFI...? They clearly have the technological and design capability.

    Probably the same reason they didn't add DI to the 3.7 v6, 5.0 & 6.2 v8. I'd guess it's to save money and maybe just adding DI doesn't automatically equal 30% more FE as you claim. Though DI is going to included with the 2012 Focus N/A 2.0L.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    But many of us are not...!

    That's fine and there are vehicles out there that should suit you just fine. Go buy a Volt or a Civic. I use my full size SUV to tow my boat etc. A small displacement N/A DI engine isn't going to cut it. The fact that Ford offers a powertrain that offers big block v8 levels of torque at v6 levels of fuel consumption works for me. Otherwise, I'll just continue to drive my v8 Expedition getting 15mpg.

    Here's something else for you to chew on. Both the Honda Accord and Hyundai Sonata use 2.4L 4cyl. The Hyundai uses DI and the Honda does not. FE for the Accord is 23/34 and the Sonota is 24/35 and they both have Similar HP. 190vs 198.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    DI is expensive. The only reason the Focus 2.0 gets DI is that in Europe that is a premium engine and they didn't want to have 2 versions. The power and fuel economy gain due to DI is small and not worth it on lower priced vehicles.

    Using a smaller displacement with DI and Turbos on the ecoboost models yield far better results than just DI alone on a larger engine.

    That said I believe Ford will put DI on all their Lincoln engines to distinguish them from the Ford versions.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles