Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Explorer trac or F150

greyhound26greyhound26 Posts: 1
edited March 2014 in Ford
I'm looking at both the Explorer Trac and the F150
Supercab. I have had 3 Rangers and 2 F150's since
1986. Now I can't stop looking at the NEW Explorer
Trac. Who has one and How do you feel about it.
Thanks

Comments

  • RoclesRocles Posts: 985
    Compare price versus function in which the F-150 should excel.
  • dbhulldbhull Posts: 150
    So you bought a compact truck to use as a sports car, huh? Seems pretty silly to me. If you wanted a sports car, there are much faster and better looking ones out there than a Dodge truck.
    And you are even more silly if you think a Dakota (any engine or package) will beat the F150 lightning. If you must buy a truck to use for stop light to stop light, the Dakota was the poorest choice for that effect.
  • quark99quark99 Posts: 136
    You in the wrong room? This ain't the Lightning forum...slapping a supercharger onto a V8 improves any truck....there isn't a Ford out there that has better performance than the Dakota, except for the Lightning, which is ridulously priced...also, if you're going to make a pedantic comment about buying a truck as a "sports car", why mention the Lightning at all? To me, the best truck means best mpg, handling, performance, in addition to hauling, payload, comfort, etc. Let me repeat it again, so slow readers like you have a moron's chance of comprehension- The ST is slow, expensive, smaller payload, etc., etc. than the Dakota Quad. The SuperCrew is closer to the Quad in terms of payload and comfort, but overpriced, slower, and less economical. Your Lightning isn't a truck at all: towing is limited to 2000 lbs (same as a Taurus) and unless I missed something, doesn't seat 6 in comfort. Payload is also less than a regular F-150. I like the Lightning, for what it is...a truck masquerading as a sports car.
    If you want to talk about fast Ford products that are reasonably priced, let's talk about the discontinued SVT Contour-one of Ford's finest efforts in automaking........but in terms of 4-door trucks, Ford missed the boat-they should have developed the Ranger into a quadcab and added the 4.6l V8 as an option. I'd be driving one now, since it'd be about $6k less than the ST....and have better tow capacity. The ST is just a way of sucking more $$ out of loyal Ford enthusiasts by slapping the "Explorer" nameplate on the vehicle.
    Just keep chanting your rationale about "sports cars vs. trucks" when you get blown away on the back roads by your local Dakota owner...don't worry, you can always salve your wounded (false) pride by paying more in gas and insurance....
  • dbhulldbhull Posts: 150
    Weeeweee. Boy, didn't mean to make you cry. As for intelligence, unless you have more than a Masters degree, I would say you are out of your league to match wits with me. I have also been around a while.

    Talk about overpriced. Anyone who would pay even the invoice cost for a small truck like the Dakota and try and justify it by stating its quarter mile statistics, well....they are the true moron.

    Hope you enjoy the Dakota. It has a just big enough bed to haul that new transmission around that you will undoubtedly need in about 20k miles.

    Dry the tears, adjust your panties, and try and have a nice day.
  • ziggy18ziggy18 Posts: 20
    Quark,
    It's nice to see you again....
    I noticed that you were carrying a one way argument as to why you're convinced that your QC is better than the ST. Are you convincing us, or yourself.
    Funny you should mention test driving a Dakota QC, I did so tonight. Drove the Nissan Frontier CC in Jan & the ST last month. Interesting that we both walked away with such differing opinions. The Dakota 3.9 w/automatic was the slowest of the three by far. The ride was much better than the Nissan but didn't match the ST's nimble feel.

    Seating: The ST had the best rear seat room of the three. My proof is that I sat in the back seat of each after my test drives. The QC's 6th seat is a joke. Its an overglorified armrest. I tried to sit there & it became clear that it was designed for a kid. A kid who should really be in the back, not the front center with no shoulder belt & questionable airbag coverage. Wait...Small kids & airbags don't get along too well, put em in the back where they're safer. Dodge touts the "6th SEAT" as a major competitive advantage & you clearly bought into it.

    "Fully Loaded"
    What's your definition of fully loaded?
    To get the QC close to the ST's base equipment you need to add the following Luxury items:
    -Automatic Trans
    -4 wheel disc brakes
    -Air Conditioning
    -Power windows & Locks
    -Sliding Rear Window (manual & out of reach from the driver but in reach of the kids compared to the driver controlled ST window) Adding a power slider will set you back $470 + installation.
    -Floormats (who charges for them anymore....)
    -CD Player
    -Bedliner
    -Body Side Molding
    And of course the 4.7 V8 since the standard V6 is so anemic. Yes adding the V8 gives the QC an acceleration advantage over the less thirsty ST's 4.0 SOHC V6.

    Are your gas mileage claims based on window stickers, magazine tests or are you trying to compare "real" numbers for very different people from various altitudes, driving conditions etc?
    I'll take window stickers -AND- magazine tests for $800 Alex.
    It's commendable that Dodge's 4.7 Auto rates no less than the QC's 3.9 Auto:
    14 City 18 Hwy.
    They're however less than the ST's marks of:
    15 City 19 Hwy.
    These numbers are close but my favorite is the tested "Normal Driving" ratings that "open Road" magazine (summer 2000) gave for the ST: 19.3MPG !!
    I would love to know where I can find these better numbers the QC has to offer.

    ST Inovation/Engineering:
    -Power Rear Window
    -A rear seat that folds to give more cargo depth on a FLAT surface than the QC. BTW the ST's jack is in the behind cargo doors created by this design, along with any other tools the owner may want to keep in the truck without storing them on the floor or adding a storage box.
    -Locking Tailgate
    -An optional cargo cage that secures itself rather than flopping around
    -A Rear 12VDC Power Point
    -Cargo Tie Downs (the inside bed ones double as bottle openers)

    Cargo Capacity:
    Yes the QC has a longer bed but before you toot the payload horn too much..
    The ST's $100 Payload option takes the rating to 1460 lbs. Oh jezz is that higher than the QC, why yes it is. The difference of 10 lbs is petty, but it's in the ST's column of W's none the less.

    I'm waiting with baited breath hear why small gains in acceleration & bed length at the expense of gas mileage & rear seat room justify touting the QC a winner over the ST.

    Talk to you soon..
    Affectionately,
    Ziggy
  • spud12spud12 Posts: 7
    man, zig, you come out with both barrels a'blastin
    .....and iiiiiiii like it. i was just pokin' around trying to find some more reading about the ST (mine will arrive appx. 2 weeks in atlanta) and came across this conversation. As I read through Mr. SuperDodge's post I found myself thinking of how I would reply. But, then......I hit your post and......go ziggy, go ziggy. NICE JOB. HEY DODGE DUDE, GO FIND A PROWLER TO RACE. (and a gas station to fill up, and a tire store, and a transmission shop, and a...............)
  • spud12spud12 Posts: 7
    go to topic #1902 (a ford guy's view of dodge or something like that) and you can get an even more complete idea of the lack of cranial horsepower Quarkie has. Gimme a "M", Gimme an "O", Gimme a "R", Gimme an "O", Gimme a "N", whatya got "QUARKIE"!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • spud12spud12 Posts: 7
    quarkie, if i see u at the stop light i probably wont want to race anyway because ill be relaxing to some bob marley/talking heads mix on my six disc in dash cd player, while allowing all of the other folks in cars around me try to figure out what kind of vehicle i am driving. dont worry they wont notice you as you "bake em" of the line in your fairly conventional looking pick-up. But, if i do get in the mood i could always smoke you in my wife's homely Volvo 850 Turbo (only 5 cylinders, but 0-60 under 7 secs. Go rah rah on the dodge site or something.
  • quark99quark99 Posts: 136
    Let's assume you mean bated breath, not baited...you're not trying to catch me with your mouth, are you?
    You make some valid points about the ST...most of the options you touted on the ST are available on the quad...save the electric sliding rear window....is having 3 engine choices bad?? Where's your 5-speed option, or better yet, a V8? Good luck with your truck- (any chance of putting spud back on his leash?) jeez, they'll let any mongrel (with a Master's, of course) in here....
  • ziggy18ziggy18 Posts: 20
    Quark,
    Aside from agreeing with me that Dodge's optional sliding rear is a weak answer to the ST's power window, do you have any thought provoking responses?
    I take it your QC is 2WD to get that "real world" mileage. The fuel economy window stickers I quoted were for 4WD. The price you quoted for a loaded ST would suggest 4WD though.
    I'm offering you a point to point debate if you can hang....

    Oh, there you are...
    Three engine options aren't a big issue to me, so long as the one I want is available, a strong efficient V6 like the ST's. Ford could offer the old pushrod V6 & the V8 on the ST & my choice would be the same.
    Dodge should catch up & not offer an inefficient V6 pushrod engine as base equipment only to brag about base price. Any intelligent Dodge QC buyer, yes that includes you, sees that the 4.7 V8 gives no worse MPG with more power & therefore pays the additional cost of the 4.7. Making the engine that best fits the ST as standard equipment is something I applaud Ford for not begrudge them. If I needed more that 5K+ towing capacity I'd go for a larger, more thirsty truck.

    Have you calculated what it costs to bring the QC up to the ST's base level? I can tell you it's neck & neck.
    Ziggy
  • quark99quark99 Posts: 136
    My original intention (1st post) were to suggest that ST/SuperCrew buyers explore all options. It appears that that was already done. Bad suggestion on my part. However, all the ST buyers out there have doctorates in truck buying, so any discussion of alternate products is met with immediate disdain/derision/name-calling, save your posts...'nuff said.
    Haven't calculated as you suggested....but it sounds as if you've done some homework....I don't consider 4wd a real option in either the Quad or the ST, since neither of the Explorer and Dakota platforms are much use for real off-roading....if I lived where snow/traction were an issue, I'd have considered it. As far as 4wd goes, the only Ford system I'm familiar with is the post '97 Ranger 4wd system, which is far advanced over any Chrysler 4wd...I see that full-time 4wd is an option for DC vehicles as of 2000, but it's too early to tell if it will be as good as what Ford offers...I'm not afraid to admit that I bought the Quad for reasons other than specs-it met my family's needs better than the ST. Ford's position of initially trying to sell ST's at MSRP didn't exactly whet my appetite, either.
    To answer your earlier options questions...the bottlecap opener tiedowns are the same as what's in the quad, the 12V bed power is a Mopar option...as far as towing...my opinion is that a midsize vehicle (yes, that includes your ST) has no business towing more than about 4000-4250 lbs..safely. So really, tow ratings beyond that are a wash. Picking up a cubic yard of landscape materials is an issue for me, so the ST wasn't a viable choice. (Bed extenders aren't very efficient at keeping rock or tan bark in the truck.) Let's end this now...and be happy with the choices we've made. Peace to all ST owners out there...
  • quark99quark99 Posts: 136
    Well said....
  • ziggy18ziggy18 Posts: 20
    I rechecked & revised the bed volume #s.

    I does seem time to let this room go back to the named topic of comparing the two Ford options.
    A few closing follow-ups.
    Although the ST's bed is 13" shorter than the QC, the volume capacities are surprisingly close due to the depth of the ST's bed.
    1 Cubic yard = 27 sq ft
    ST bed volume = 33 sq ft
    QC bed volume = 38 sq ft
    Source: Dodge dealer propaganda literature.

    4WD is key for a New Englander like myself.
    It appears that I'm as happy with my choice of the ST as you are with your QC. Such passions keep the world interesting.
    Ziggy
  • dbhulldbhull Posts: 150
    Oh geez, Quark, you still crying in here????

    You cry out all sorts of Ford envy.
  • spud12spud12 Posts: 7
    so i had a little too much coffee in my system, sorry. i have really enjoyed the punch for punch between zig and quarkie. you both make valid points and you both seem to like your vehicles. in the words of the ever innocent rodney king "can't we all jus' get along?" :]
  • ziggy18ziggy18 Posts: 20
    It's funny, I almost used the same quote the last time Quark & I met up in the ST room.
    Quark,
    I've enjoyed following your posts in the various rooms including the QC rooms. There's lots of good info out there, common experiences, friendly jabs etc.
    Give your truck a hug from me.
    Ziggy
  • quark99quark99 Posts: 136
    Enjoy an occasional verbal fisticuffs...being a Ford man all my life...trust me, I understand the passion...maybe I'll just chuck it all and get a "clearanced" SVT Contour.....
  • meredithmeredith Posts: 577
    After 30 or more days of inactivity....

    this topic is being "frozen." It will be archived or deleted in the next 10 days or so.

    Front Porch Philosopher
    SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
This discussion has been closed.