The explorer tends to get less than the EPA, but so far my FS has just about matched EPA.
I can attest to that. EPA city for '06 Explorer is 14 or 15 and we get 13 for 95% city. The new EPA figures for the Explorer are 13 city consequently.
I have not taken it on the highway for more than a few miles yet so I can't give any real world figures for that. I'll find that out this summer. I actually can't wait to do that too. It is a really nice truck otherwise.
They are innocuous, inoffensive...and ultimately too boring looking to make the projected sales. amazing how dumb folks are to put looks so high up on the list...it's just a car.
Two kids. Double strollers and other gear. Occasional need for a third row and it folds flat when not in use. One with rear DVD was easy to find (and you don't need to load it with all options to get it). Envoy and Trailblazer have third rows from the 80s. Trips to Ikea and Home Depot/Lowes for nails to drywall. Can drive on the beach during vacation in the OBX. Great lease deal. Had an Escape and it was too small after #2 was born.
The only large CUV available at the time we leased was the Freestyle. I really liked it but my wife hated the station wagon styling. She also hates minivans. I'm not a fan of the Pilot and I'll never own a Toyota.
In the end we really liked the Explorer so that's what we bought. My other car is a Mustang GT so gas mileage isn't a priority in our house as you might be able to tell.
Interestingly enough, despite having 2 less lbs/hp than the Acadia. The AWD Freestyle actually has more torque per pound than the AWD Acadia. The Freestyle's numbers don't sound impressive, but would only need 27 more hp (230hp) to match the Acadia pound for pound, not the 263hp that it is getting for 2008. With 203hp (72 less hp!), the Freestyle is only about 3 tenths slower. People have gotten the CX-9 to rocket to 60 nearly a full second quicker (7.5 seconds) than the Acadia (8.4 seconds) despite the CX-9's 12 less hp. All this and it still managed better gas mileage, despite it's lower rating, on MT's test loop.
Just helping your point a little bit barnstormer64, even though I'm not exactly a Freestyle fan. :P
Do you pass them on freeway onramps, or in emergency situations when they're trying to accelerate out of a semi's way?
Your point about your vehicles not necessarily being underpowered is well-taken, but more power is usable, even if every red light is not a drag race, and not everybody does 20 mph over the speed limit, all the time.
In my suburban town, I see a lot of soccer moms in minivans flooring it when the traffic light turns green, "smoking" 'Vettes and Porsches. If that makes them feel better about their choice of vehicle, great... but it still looks absurd.
Do you pass them on freeway onramps, or in emergency situations when they're trying to accelerate out of a semi's way?
Maybe instead of trying to outrace a semi, you just let off the gas and merge behind him. It's hard to imagine too many instances where you need to accelerate in an emergency situation...other than out of impatience or trying to be first.
Bob3 - May I suggest a good defensive driving course. I won't say most but certainly many situations are better dealt with by accelerating rather than braking. Merging into traffic is one of those, by braking you are asking to get rear ended by the guy behind you who is looking back to see where he can merge in.
Philosphically disagree with you. A lot of the traffic congestion where I live is generated by people "letting off the gas." If I see a semi merging at 40 mph into my lane in freeway traffic, I'm not racing him for vanity's sake. Sometimes, it's not impatience - it's keeping traffic flowing.
"I won't say most but certainly many situations are better dealt with by accelerating rather than braking."
I completely agree. I believe that one of the worst things you can do on an interstate is to hit the brakes. You don't want to end up like the poor saps who are at a dead stop at the end of an enterance ramp blocking traffic. That is a dangerous situation.
That is also one of the reasons we did not get a FS when we were car shopping. (aside from the fact that my wife did not like it. Her car, her decision.) I was getting on the interstate and it was fine until I hit the gas to see if it had any oomph left in case I had to beat a semi or eat shoulder. Sorry, but there was no oomph there. Other than that it was a very solid car. I liked it a lot.
The other issue was the seating capacity. It seats 6. That is only 1 more than my family. So, we can't really take anybody else along on trips and vacations. Most of the people we know are couples, so we would have to take 2 cars. Yes, I know that you can get a second row bench. But there is no way you can fit 3 across. No way. Not with adults and carseats. We tried and it was not comfortable at all. It is just smaller than the Lambdas. Ironically, that is a reason I liked it better. I prefer smaller to larger cars. But, when the Boss says no, the Boss means no.
Bob3 - May I suggest a good defensive driving course. I won't say most but certainly many situations are better dealt with by accelerating rather than braking. May I suggest that you re-read my post...I didn’t say anything about braking, just letting off the gas a little to merge in behind it.
I completely agree. I believe that one of the worst things you can do on an interstate is to hit the brakes. You don't want to end up like the poor saps who are at a dead stop at the end of an enterance ramp blocking traffic. That is a dangerous situation. Correct...but you don’t need to slam on the brakes to merge.
Philosphically disagree with you. A lot of the traffic congestion where I live is generated by people "letting off the gas." If I see a semi merging at 40 mph into my lane in freeway traffic, I'm not racing him for vanity's sake. Sometimes, it's not impatience - it's keeping traffic flowing. I don’t think you’ll have any problems getting past a 40mph merging semi with Freestyle...
Again, none of you have provided an example of an emergency situation requiring acceleration. If you see a semi ahead merging in traffic at 40mph, then you should be aware of it well before it becomes an emergency if you’re paying attention.
Plus, if a semi is merging at 40mph, the one or two cars trying to get ahead of it won’t affect the overall traffic flow. There will just be a couple more cars ahead of the slower moving semi instead of behind it.
"I don’t think you’ll have any problems getting past a 40mph merging semi with Freestyle...
Again, none of you have provided an example of an emergency situation requiring acceleration. If you see a semi ahead merging in traffic at 40mph, then you should be aware of it well before it becomes an emergency if you’re paying attention.
Plus, if a semi is merging at 40mph, the one or two cars trying to get ahead of it won’t affect the overall traffic flow. There will just be a couple more cars ahead of the slower moving semi instead of behind it."
You must not be overly familliar with the "cloverleaf" ramp configuration. Personally, I hate the things. You may see the semi coming (along with the dozen cars behind it) but there is not a whole lot you can do about it because you have about a 1/4 mile to get up to speed and merge into the highway while avoiding the people trying to exit at the same time. In this situation extra oomph is not a want it is a NEED for safety.
Also, you contridicted yourself saying that you could easily pass the semi, then say you will be behind it. I don't get it. Personally, Iwould rather be ahead of it where the other cars aren't. That's just me.
There is no shortage of go in the FS, bury the pedal to the floor and it flat goes, I suspect people aren't pressing the gas pedal all the way to the floor to use what the FS has hence the bad rap. People used to a regular automatic press a bit to get the kickdown to get the gear they need the CVT seems to need more throttle input to get it to go. It has more than enough power to deal with any highway situation safely and apropriately regardless of whether braking or acceleration is required. But then I suspect most critic's around here haven't ever driven one so we'll just leave it at that...and to those that have I just plain do not agree.
Also, you contridicted yourself saying that you could easily pass the semi, then say you will be behind it. I don't get it. Personally, Iwould rather be ahead of it where the other cars aren't. That's just me.
Wrong...I was responding to two different examples. One where you're merging and the other with a truck merging...please re-read.
because you have about a 1/4 mile to get up to speed and merge into the highway while avoiding the people trying to exit at the same time. In this situation extra oomph is not a want it is a NEED for safety. I guess my cloverleaf skills are just better. Maybe after you get more experience, you'll rely on your driving skill versus engine "oomph"
Bottom line is that the Freestyle has plenty of power if you know how to press the pedal to the floor if you really have to. Just ask Freestyle owners versus car reviewers.
Maybe "absurd american" instead of stupid. The idea that more is always better is uniquely american, more power, more size, more shiney bits, more expensive gadgets to break because they connote luxury and sophistication. All it is is wasteful. More weight requires more engine requires more gas requires more running expenses requires more service requires more, more, more. It starts to become absurd and ignorant even stupid in a regard. Your FS must be giving you prrrrromblems! And about more being worse-look at the lambdas. They weigh more than the competition, yet outperform many along with having better gas mileage.
You are so completely incorrect. In your oppinion-which ma be completely off based. How can they be an improvement as they pander to the lowest common denominator of the buying public not because they present forward thought on the solution to the archetype of the CUV but because they take the easy way out and just give to the thoughtless and undemanding buying public what they think they "need". As you said more weight needs more power, and what's wrong with that if you get same gas mileage? It is one of the better examples of the absurdity and shortsightedness of the american buying public and yes in the end you can even call it stupid with a side order of irresponsible arrogance. Don't name call others as a result of your own insecurities.
You would think they could do better than that with all the technology that's avaiable. Why does the current darling acadia need to be hauling around a minimum of 500lbs more for no great increase in footprint compared to the FS. CUV's stump every fullsize SUV out there in about every benefit but haulin and offroading. Let's be rational now. And all that Acadia wieght is just numbers. It outperforms many of it's competitors without feeling heavy and while getting much better mileage. So there's your technology. As a FS owner I lament the "improvements of the T-rex that are coming, the CVT/3.0 was the perfect compromise of efficiency/power for this type of vehicle Another FS owner griping about other's CUV choice. And realy- you havve no proof the TX isn't a better vehicle than the FS. So quit assuming.
I see a lot of soccer moms in minivans flooring it when the traffic light turns green, "smoking" 'Vettes and Porsches. If that makes them feel better about their choice of vehicle, great... but it still looks absurd.
What seems more absurd to me are the buyers of the Porsches and the Vettes, who never seem to use all that power that they think they must have. :P
amazing how dumb folks are to put looks so high up on the list...it's just a car. Maybe "folks" don't want to drive a car they think is ugly. It's their purchase. DO you want to marry and ugy wife?
You may see the semi coming (along with the dozen cars behind it) but there is not a whole lot you can do about it because you have about a 1/4 mile to get up to speed and merge into the highway while avoiding the people trying to exit at the same time. In this situation extra oomph is not a want it is a NEED for safety.
In general, the problem is this: given that you have enough acceleration to get past the semi, you do it, and THEN you immediately find yourself boxed in by all the backed up traffic in front of the semi . . the traffic that was causing the semi to be doing only 40mph in the first place.
All too frequently, I see those with "excess power" only using it to get around a vehicle, to then be stuck in a "box" a dozen car lengths ahead . . where he then switches back and forth trying to find a "hole" around which he then accelerates up to the next road block another 12 car lengths ahead of that.
I do agree, though, that having ample power is a useful tool. But then so is knowing exactly what power you do have, and then using it when you can . . but not in an aggressive or unsafe manner. Many times, accelerating around a problem isn't really helping the traffic flow . . . in fact, it probably hinders it by causing unsafe situations that cause others behind you to brake.
There is no shortage of go in the FS, bury the pedal to the floor and it flat goes, I suspect people aren't pressing the gas pedal all the way to the floor to use what the FS has hence the bad rap
I tend to agree. If you floor the Freestyle, it'll kick into high rpm's very quickly, and you'll soon find yourself running into the cars ahead of you.
Amazingly enough, I find that the Freestyle actually performs about the same as the Taurus did, even though it's got the same engine, but weight quite a bit more. I attribute this to the CVT, and how it was programmed. Unlike the 4-speed in the Taurus, the Freestyle doesn't hesitate before sliding down into a lower "gear" to accelerate quickly. As long as you give it some gas, that is. If you barely mash in the pedal, it assumes that you're not calling for much power. If you press harder, it assumes that you want to accelerate faster . . pretty logical, if you ask me.
I've got no problems with people who WANT something . . but then to turn around and call it a NEED . . granted, do we even "need" transporation? People lived without vehicles and A/C over 100 years ago. :P
However, I saw an article today that should give us reason to pause: According to a poll, 41% of Americans say that they won't buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, REGARDLESS of what happens to gasoline prices. Hmmm, and we wonder why gasoline prices keep going up?
You so don't get the point it's commical. You are the tarket market. I was more making the point the "most significant vehicle" isn't the solution it's cracked up to be when you look at it "rationally" as you seem to think you are. You can level the same criticism's against the other competition as well. As I mentioned I am not happy with the path of the T-rex due to it going in the wrong direction placating the lowest common denominator. Maybe if ford was not in the desperate shape it is in and had more confidence hanging one out over the plate they could hit a homer not only for them but the consumer as well.
My wife and I work hard to have a nice life for us and our child like most out there, I'm not an extremist, fanatic, right winger, etc. I design for a living, I know the process and I know the questions to ask, I try to see logic in decision making and embrace emotion when appropriate. My point is more,more,more is not the direction to be going in with gas costing what it does presently and what will come to pass in the future.
My FS has not been a problem, quite the contrary only suffering from the rear brake issue that was handled fairly by the dealer. And as I have stated here and other forums it's not perfect but I do stand by my assesment that it is the best balance of value, economy, technology & space that has been put forth by any of the manufacturer's. Whether it light's your emotional fire for a purchase is irrelevant when looking at it "rationally", I know, I know car's are emotional purchases...I've made mine with others I have purchased.
The land of the free and home of the absurd has embraced attitudes that will not bode well for the future both economically and environmentally. There are design solutions that can better serve this and other vehicles, diesel power, hybrid, light weight materials, etc.. Why doesn't the lambda's embrace any of that, that would make it actually "most significant" instead they took the easy path to satisfy the target market... YOU mistr... YOU and those like you. Is it horrible, no, is it the end of the world, no, are there better more responsible attitudes to embrace with the next generation coming to market... absolutely, will they, I won't hold my breath.
Did you once think that with the new EPA testing regs that all across the board are going to post lower numbers than current. Wouldn't it be nice to see the number at the very least stay level with the new models embracing better solutions to address the revised testing as opposed to just taking it on the chin. Due to legislation, special interests, corruption, arrogance based ignorance and "giving the people what they want", more, more, more you will find better more rational solutions are being kept from the market. That's not a healthy marketplace to be shopping in.
I'm the one secure enough to be driving and owning a FS
But are you ALSO secure enough to call it the Five Hundred Wagon, like I do? :P
I will say, good for Ford if the new tranny actually shifts as smoothly as the CVT . . but I have my doubts. But then a lot of that depends on how they program it.
"CUV's stump every fullsize SUV out there in about every benefit but haulin and offroading. Let's be rational now. And all that Acadia wieght is just numbers. It outperforms many of it's competitors without feeling heavy and while getting much better mileage. So there's your technology."
Imagine how much better mileage it would be getting if it weighed 500lbs less and how much faster it would be... that would make us both happy and I'd concede GM did it's homework and made a difference in the CUV market instead of taking the easy way out.
"Another FS owner griping about other's CUV choice. And realy- you havve no proof the TX isn't a better vehicle than the FS. So quit assuming."
I'm not griping about your choice, I'm griping about what is perceived as progress and forward thinking about a design brief.
The deletion of the CVT and the increased HP are missing the point for me, the best money spent on the FS model freshening for '08 would have been to spend it all on the interior and the quality of the materials. Have you sat in a vw, our '98 passat has a nicer interior materials and was cheaper to buy even adjusted for the model year difference. Ford can and needs to do better with that.
he best money spent on the FS model freshening for '08 would have been to spend it all on the interior and the quality of the materials. . . . Ford can and needs to do better with that.
As long as they still offer the current styling (like the '05 LTD trim, with leather seats) as a less expensive option, I'd say go for it. But I'd hate to have to pay more for a supposedly "nicer" interior . . to me, it's just simply not any nicer . . . certainly not worth more money, anyway.
"..Ford was catering to "the masses" (which, by definition, aren't the brightest folks around) when they upped the horsepower/displacement with a new engine and got rid of the CVT."
C'mon barnstormer64. Ford dropped the CVT because the Euro/Dollar exchange rate made it too damn expensive to build and equip in their automobiles. In other words.. it became a luxury item the company could no longer afford to subsidize. The great unwashed "masses" had nothing to do with it. The new 6-spd in the X will likely deliver similar (if not identical) efficiencies at a much lower cost to Ford and it's customers, making it a win-win situation for all.
The CVT Ford uses cannot handle more than 258 ft. lbs. of torque which puts the new engines dangerously close to the torque limit. The CVT allowed Ford to squeeze the most performance and efficiency out of an engine that was generally going to be overtaxed, given a standard transmission, due to the vehicles weight. The new combo is likely to deliver 18/25 FWD like the Edge, but that's down 2mpg from the old engine. People have also pulled some amazing highway mileage with the CVT, which I doubt we will see out of the new combo. It all depends on where you put your priorities... gas mileage or performance.
"The new combo is likely to deliver 18/25 FWD like the Edge, but that's down 2mpg from the old engine."
It will be difficult (if not impossible) to make such comparisons because of the changes being made by EPA in their testing methods that will start with the '08 models.
I would look for it to say 15/22 instead of 18/25 for 2008. Most have been going down about 3mpg. It might surprise me with another mpg since an FWD Freestyle is marginally lighter than an FWD Edge.
"The CVT Ford uses cannot handle more than 258 ft. lbs. of torque which puts the new engines dangerously close to the torque limit"
Correct but Nissan uses a cvt in the murano and it has more hp, Ford if they were smart could have redesigned the cvt to handle more torque, installed it and had the "benefit" of the 3.5l in the marketplace differentiating themselves from the other players. That would have been a "bold move". How come Nissan can implement the cvt effectively and ford can't, marketing, it all comes down to marketing and trying to get a customer that thinks outside the box. Ford needs to reinvent itself and taking a page from nissan might not be a bad start as they were in the doldrums in the not to distant past.
BTW - mistr sorry about directing that one post at you, it should have been in response to albook...my bad
The 6-speed is much cheaper to build and design since Ford worked with GM on it. I can't fault them for doing it the way they did. The idea is to make money, and the new 6-speed seems to be getting the job done. Ford didn't think far enough ahead with the CVT. I think they were originally thinking of using it in smaller cars and hybrid vehicles, but that program has been pushed way back. There for a while Ford was notoriously short-sighted. I think they are slowly correcting it, but they have a ways to go. I think the Flex will be their first bold move since the Edge is missing to many things in the details department.
I really think the FS was the bold move, cvt, volvo underpinnings, the potential for great mpg for a non diesel/hybrid, great space, people just refuse to give it the credit it is due. If it looked a bit different apparantly people would have a better opinion of it. To add to it the naming nomenclature was silly thinking they could play off the freestar which was horrible. The other thing people fail to recognize it was to market 2 years before all the latecomers that are spoken of as the darlings around here.
Ford simply did not know how to manage this market segment as they only had the pacifica/highlander(I think it had 3 rows, not sure) to go against and are now paying the price having now to play catch-up in a segment that is becoming filled with newer but not necessarily better competition. Yes the flex is going to be a great next step it seems and I hope it is as I might be trading in our FS for one in its second year or so. Heck imagine if they slapped a diesel in it... I'd definitely have check in hand at that point.
Funny you should mention a diesel. Hyundai is planning on bringing over its V6 diesel in 2010. Plans are to use it beginning with the Veracruz. Beyond that, who knows. Santa Fe? One driver in Australia with a Hyundai CRDI diesel in a Sante Fe went over 1100 miles on one tank!
It's not exactly Volvo underpinnings. The original design went to Volvo, but it has been havily modified to cut costs. There's alot of aluminum in Volvo's design.
I think their biggest mistake was to play off of the styling of the Explorer in a bland way. That generation Explorer was/is nice, but it's a little bit vanilla. The current gen Freestyle is therefore nearly unnoticeable. Match that with the non-existant advertising and too few people take notice.
"Merely pointed out to a fellow Freestyle owner that Ford was catering to "the masses" (which, by definition, aren't the brightest folks around) when they upped the horsepower/displacement with a new engine and got rid of the CVT."
Hmmm, "catering to the masses", i.e., building what the customer wants. I think Ford needs to do more of that, so they can stay in business.
Just because they are catering to the lowest common denominator means its the right answer, they didn't do it with the original Taurus/Sable and I don't think they should now. It's time for a "hail mary" as the conservative route has not served them well.
Like I said, the land of the free and absurd, more, more, more... what are we going to be left with from the manufacturer's, 350hp corolla's, 650hp chrysler 300's and acadia's, 950hp caddy sts, getting poor fuel economy just because the market does not know when to say when. Where in this equation did improved driver's ed fit in, oh that's right technology is going to manage all of that for us as well. So look look what we have achieved, absurdity as opposed to taking some responsibility to recognize when enough is enough.
Plus, the vast majority of people (driving mostly machines with plenty of power in reserve) are godawful drivers. A bit more discipline and skill on everyone's part would go a long way. And help as well when people make their buying decisions.
I should refraise that. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But As Joe may think Ted's wife is ugly, and vice versa, Joe probably thinks his wife is attractive, as with Ted.
Comments
I can attest to that. EPA city for '06 Explorer is 14 or 15 and we get 13 for 95% city. The new EPA figures for the Explorer are 13 city consequently.
I have not taken it on the highway for more than a few miles yet so I can't give any real world figures for that. I'll find that out this summer. I actually can't wait to do that too. It is a really nice truck otherwise.
The only large CUV available at the time we leased was the Freestyle. I really liked it but my wife hated the station wagon styling. She also hates minivans. I'm not a fan of the Pilot and I'll never own a Toyota.
In the end we really liked the Explorer so that's what we bought. My other car is a Mustang GT so gas mileage isn't a priority in our house as you might be able to tell.
Reason enough for ya?
The Taurus X doesn't have a CVT. I rest my case. :P
And you must do some dangerous driving to smoke anything but a minivan in the FS.
Hardly . . again, you're missing the point. People aren't USING the power that they already HAVE . . yet they insist on more horsepower. Go figure.
The point is, the FS was a good vehicle. It needed an upgrade to stay with the competition.
Only because of what people THINK they need.
If they used the extra power, I wouldn't be passing them all up routinely, in my "underpowered" vehicles, now would I?
Just helping your point a little bit barnstormer64, even though I'm not exactly a Freestyle fan. :P
Your point about your vehicles not necessarily being underpowered is well-taken, but more power is usable, even if every red light is not a drag race, and not everybody does 20 mph over the speed limit, all the time.
In my suburban town, I see a lot of soccer moms in minivans flooring it when the traffic light turns green, "smoking" 'Vettes and Porsches. If that makes them feel better about their choice of vehicle, great... but it still looks absurd.
Reason enough :P
Maybe instead of trying to outrace a semi, you just let off the gas and merge behind him. It's hard to imagine too many instances where you need to accelerate in an emergency situation...other than out of impatience or trying to be first.
Merging into traffic is one of those, by braking you are asking to get rear ended by the guy behind you who is looking back to see where he can merge in.
I completely agree. I believe that one of the worst things you can do on an interstate is to hit the brakes. You don't want to end up like the poor saps who are at a dead stop at the end of an enterance ramp blocking traffic. That is a dangerous situation.
That is also one of the reasons we did not get a FS when we were car shopping. (aside from the fact that my wife did not like it. Her car, her decision.) I was getting on the interstate and it was fine until I hit the gas to see if it had any oomph left in case I had to beat a semi or eat shoulder. Sorry, but there was no oomph there. Other than that it was a very solid car. I liked it a lot.
The other issue was the seating capacity. It seats 6. That is only 1 more than my family. So, we can't really take anybody else along on trips and vacations. Most of the people we know are couples, so we would have to take 2 cars. Yes, I know that you can get a second row bench. But there is no way you can fit 3 across. No way. Not with adults and carseats. We tried and it was not comfortable at all. It is just smaller than the Lambdas. Ironically, that is a reason I liked it better. I prefer smaller to larger cars. But, when the Boss says no, the Boss means no.
Bob3 - May I suggest a good defensive driving course. I won't say most but certainly many situations are better dealt with by accelerating rather than braking.
May I suggest that you re-read my post...I didn’t say anything about braking, just letting off the gas a little to merge in behind it.
I completely agree. I believe that one of the worst things you can do on an interstate is to hit the brakes. You don't want to end up like the poor saps who are at a dead stop at the end of an enterance ramp blocking traffic. That is a dangerous situation.
Correct...but you don’t need to slam on the brakes to merge.
Philosphically disagree with you. A lot of the traffic congestion where I live is generated by people "letting off the gas." If I see a semi merging at 40 mph into my lane in freeway traffic, I'm not racing him for vanity's sake. Sometimes, it's not impatience - it's keeping traffic flowing.
I don’t think you’ll have any problems getting past a 40mph merging semi with Freestyle...
Again, none of you have provided an example of an emergency situation requiring acceleration. If you see a semi ahead merging in traffic at 40mph, then you should be aware of it well before it becomes an emergency if you’re paying attention.
Plus, if a semi is merging at 40mph, the one or two cars trying to get ahead of it won’t affect the overall traffic flow. There will just be a couple more cars ahead of the slower moving semi instead of behind it.
Again, none of you have provided an example of an emergency situation requiring acceleration. If you see a semi ahead merging in traffic at 40mph, then you should be aware of it well before it becomes an emergency if you’re paying attention.
Plus, if a semi is merging at 40mph, the one or two cars trying to get ahead of it won’t affect the overall traffic flow. There will just be a couple more cars ahead of the slower moving semi instead of behind it."
You must not be overly familliar with the "cloverleaf" ramp configuration. Personally, I hate the things. You may see the semi coming (along with the dozen cars behind it) but there is not a whole lot you can do about it because you have about a 1/4 mile to get up to speed and merge into the highway while avoiding the people trying to exit at the same time. In this situation extra oomph is not a want it is a NEED for safety.
Also, you contridicted yourself saying that you could easily pass the semi, then say you will be behind it. I don't get it. Personally, Iwould rather be ahead of it where the other cars aren't. That's just me.
Wrong...I was responding to two different examples. One where you're merging and the other with a truck merging...please re-read.
because you have about a 1/4 mile to get up to speed and merge into the highway while avoiding the people trying to exit at the same time. In this situation extra oomph is not a want it is a NEED for safety. I guess my cloverleaf skills are just better. Maybe after you get more experience, you'll rely on your driving skill versus engine "oomph"
Bottom line is that the Freestyle has plenty of power if you know how to press the pedal to the floor if you really have to. Just ask Freestyle owners versus car reviewers.
Your FS must be giving you prrrrromblems! And about more being worse-look at the lambdas. They weigh more than the competition, yet outperform many along with having better gas mileage.
In your oppinion-which ma be completely off based.
How can they be an improvement as they pander to the lowest common denominator of the buying public not because they present forward thought on the solution to the archetype of the CUV but because they take the easy way out and just give to the thoughtless and undemanding buying public what they think they "need". As you said more weight needs more power, and what's wrong with that if you get same gas mileage?
It is one of the better examples of the absurdity and shortsightedness of the american buying public and yes in the end you can even call it stupid with a side order of irresponsible arrogance.
Don't name call others as a result of your own insecurities.
Okay then...
Thanks for expressing your oppinion?! :confuse:
CUV's stump every fullsize SUV out there in about every benefit but haulin and offroading. Let's be rational now.
And all that Acadia wieght is just numbers. It outperforms many of it's competitors without feeling heavy and while getting much better mileage. So there's your technology.
As a FS owner I lament the "improvements of the T-rex that are coming, the CVT/3.0 was the perfect compromise of efficiency/power for this type of vehicle
Another FS owner griping about other's CUV choice. And realy- you havve no proof the TX isn't a better vehicle than the FS. So quit assuming.
What seems more absurd to me are the buyers of the Porsches and the Vettes, who never seem to use all that power that they think they must have. :P
Maybe "folks" don't want to drive a car they think is ugly. It's their purchase. DO you want to marry and ugy wife?
In general, the problem is this: given that you have enough acceleration to get past the semi, you do it, and THEN you immediately find yourself boxed in by all the backed up traffic in front of the semi . . the traffic that was causing the semi to be doing only 40mph in the first place.
All too frequently, I see those with "excess power" only using it to get around a vehicle, to then be stuck in a "box" a dozen car lengths ahead . . where he then switches back and forth trying to find a "hole" around which he then accelerates up to the next road block another 12 car lengths ahead of that.
I do agree, though, that having ample power is a useful tool. But then so is knowing exactly what power you do have, and then using it when you can . . but not in an aggressive or unsafe manner. Many times, accelerating around a problem isn't really helping the traffic flow . . . in fact, it probably hinders it by causing unsafe situations that cause others behind you to brake.
I tend to agree. If you floor the Freestyle, it'll kick into high rpm's very quickly, and you'll soon find yourself running into the cars ahead of you.
Amazingly enough, I find that the Freestyle actually performs about the same as the Taurus did, even though it's got the same engine, but weight quite a bit more. I attribute this to the CVT, and how it was programmed. Unlike the 4-speed in the Taurus, the Freestyle doesn't hesitate before sliding down into a lower "gear" to accelerate quickly. As long as you give it some gas, that is. If you barely mash in the pedal, it assumes that you're not calling for much power. If you press harder, it assumes that you want to accelerate faster . . pretty logical, if you ask me.
However, I saw an article today that should give us reason to pause: According to a poll, 41% of Americans say that they won't buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, REGARDLESS of what happens to gasoline prices. Hmmm, and we wonder why gasoline prices keep going up?
You so don't get the point it's commical. You are the tarket market. I was more making the point the "most significant vehicle" isn't the solution it's cracked up to be when you look at it "rationally" as you seem to think you are. You can level the same criticism's against the other competition as well. As I mentioned I am not happy with the path of the T-rex due to it going in the wrong direction placating the lowest common denominator. Maybe if ford was not in the desperate shape it is in and had more confidence hanging one out over the plate they could hit a homer not only for them but the consumer as well.
My wife and I work hard to have a nice life for us and our child like most out there, I'm not an extremist, fanatic, right winger, etc. I design for a living, I know the process and I know the questions to ask, I try to see logic in decision making and embrace emotion when appropriate. My point is more,more,more is not the direction to be going in with gas costing what it does presently and what will come to pass in the future.
My FS has not been a problem, quite the contrary only suffering from the rear brake issue that was handled fairly by the dealer. And as I have stated here and other forums it's not perfect but I do stand by my assesment that it is the best balance of value, economy, technology & space that has been put forth by any of the manufacturer's. Whether it light's your emotional fire for a purchase is irrelevant when looking at it "rationally", I know, I know car's are emotional purchases...I've made mine with others I have purchased.
The land of the free and home of the absurd has embraced attitudes that will not bode well for the future both economically and environmentally. There are design solutions that can better serve this and other vehicles, diesel power, hybrid, light weight materials, etc.. Why doesn't the lambda's embrace any of that, that would make it actually "most significant" instead they took the easy path to satisfy the target market... YOU mistr... YOU and those like you. Is it horrible, no, is it the end of the world, no, are there better more responsible attitudes to embrace with the next generation coming to market... absolutely, will they, I won't hold my breath.
Did you once think that with the new EPA testing regs that all across the board are going to post lower numbers than current. Wouldn't it be nice to see the number at the very least stay level with the new models embracing better solutions to address the revised testing as opposed to just taking it on the chin. Due to legislation, special interests, corruption, arrogance based ignorance and "giving the people what they want", more, more, more you will find better more rational solutions are being kept from the market. That's not a healthy marketplace to be shopping in.
I believe that's what Jimmy Soul advised in If You Want to be Happy back in '63. :shades:
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
"Don't name call others as a result of your own insecurities."
I'm the one secure enough to be driving and owning a FS, you're the one seemingly looking to compensate for something...
But are you ALSO secure enough to call it the Five Hundred Wagon, like I do? :P
I will say, good for Ford if the new tranny actually shifts as smoothly as the CVT . . but I have my doubts. But then a lot of that depends on how they program it.
And all that Acadia wieght is just numbers. It outperforms many of it's competitors without feeling heavy and while getting much better mileage. So there's your technology."
Imagine how much better mileage it would be getting if it weighed 500lbs less and how much faster it would be... that would make us both happy and I'd concede GM did it's homework and made a difference in the CUV market instead of taking the easy way out.
"Another FS owner griping about other's CUV choice. And realy- you havve no proof the TX isn't a better vehicle than the FS. So quit assuming."
I'm not griping about your choice, I'm griping about what is perceived as progress and forward thinking about a design brief.
The deletion of the CVT and the increased HP are missing the point for me, the best money spent on the FS model freshening for '08 would have been to spend it all on the interior and the quality of the materials. Have you sat in a vw, our '98 passat has a nicer interior materials and was cheaper to buy even adjusted for the model year difference. Ford can and needs to do better with that.
As long as they still offer the current styling (like the '05 LTD trim, with leather seats) as a less expensive option, I'd say go for it. But I'd hate to have to pay more for a supposedly "nicer" interior . . to me, it's just simply not any nicer . . . certainly not worth more money, anyway.
Agree, but they'd be able to get around the merging semi with a LOT more safety cushion than you.
C'mon barnstormer64. Ford dropped the CVT because the Euro/Dollar exchange rate made it too damn expensive to build and equip in their automobiles. In other words.. it became a luxury item the company could no longer afford to subsidize. The great unwashed "masses" had nothing to do with it. The new 6-spd in the X will likely deliver similar (if not identical) efficiencies at a much lower cost to Ford and it's customers, making it a win-win situation for all.
It will be difficult (if not impossible) to make such comparisons because of the changes being made by EPA in their testing methods that will start with the '08 models.
Correct but Nissan uses a cvt in the murano and it has more hp, Ford if they were smart could have redesigned the cvt to handle more torque, installed it and had the "benefit" of the 3.5l in the marketplace differentiating themselves from the other players. That would have been a "bold move". How come Nissan can implement the cvt effectively and ford can't, marketing, it all comes down to marketing and trying to get a customer that thinks outside the box. Ford needs to reinvent itself and taking a page from nissan might not be a bad start as they were in the doldrums in the not to distant past.
BTW - mistr sorry about directing that one post at you, it should have been in response to albook...my bad
Ford simply did not know how to manage this market segment as they only had the pacifica/highlander(I think it had 3 rows, not sure) to go against and are now paying the price having now to play catch-up in a segment that is becoming filled with newer but not necessarily better competition. Yes the flex is going to be a great next step it seems and I hope it is as I might be trading in our FS for one in its second year or so. Heck imagine if they slapped a diesel in it... I'd definitely have check in hand at that point.
Funny you should mention a diesel. Hyundai is planning on bringing over its V6 diesel in 2010. Plans are to use it beginning with the Veracruz. Beyond that, who knows. Santa Fe? One driver in Australia with a Hyundai CRDI diesel in a Sante Fe went over 1100 miles on one tank!
Hyundai Diesel in 2010
I think their biggest mistake was to play off of the styling of the Explorer in a bland way. That generation Explorer was/is nice, but it's a little bit vanilla. The current gen Freestyle is therefore nearly unnoticeable. Match that with the non-existant advertising and too few people take notice.
Hmmm, "catering to the masses", i.e., building what the customer wants. I think Ford needs to do more of that, so they can stay in business.
Like I said, the land of the free and absurd, more, more, more... what are we going to be left with from the manufacturer's, 350hp corolla's, 650hp chrysler 300's and acadia's, 950hp caddy sts, getting poor fuel economy just because the market does not know when to say when. Where in this equation did improved driver's ed fit in, oh that's right technology is going to manage all of that for us as well. So look look what we have achieved, absurdity as opposed to taking some responsibility to recognize when enough is enough.
Plus, the vast majority of people (driving mostly machines with plenty of power in reserve) are godawful drivers. A bit more discipline and skill on everyone's part would go a long way. And help as well when people make their buying decisions.