Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Interesting coming from someone who harps on FE so much. Would you like a 200Hp 2.4 DI 4cyl to replace the flat 6 in your Carrera?
285 HP from a 3.5 that is tuned for torque sounds good to me.
How much do you really need?
I will follow the fuel mileage reports with some interest.
A few years ago, I had an '07 Edge as a loaner for a few days.
I drove it harder than normal (not abuse) and averaged 20 mpg.
Most Driver shafts are 46" long, max. Adding 6" for the bag and head cover, and another 4" for the club head puts you at 56". The cargo width at floor is 64.9". No issues with width.
You would likely have to stack the bags, 2 on 2, to keep them reaching the wheelhouse. The width at the wheelhouse is only 40.8.
HUGE improvement, Gracie? looks like 1 MPG to me, and that's not huge to me, it's insignificant. Of course, I could be wrong....
I'm ok with the '11 Explorer not being as quick.
I thought MPG comparison was, Huh???
For that much extra money there, is some added value, but not 0-60, or fuel mileage.
To match the SHO 0-60, spend more money and give up some mileage.
Panamera and Explorer in a foot of snow?
Even absent the rear drive capability this 2011 Ford Explorer is pretty LARGE and WEIGHTY for a derated/detuned I4 EcoBoost/twinForce Gas-Guzzling engine. Cruise FE, running in derated/detuned mode, is likely to be abysmal if not just plain HORRID.
On the other hand should Ford rethink(***) the design, make it truly and ECO-boost engine, it might still come up short on the HP/torque equation.
*** Maybe use a variable delay technique for intake valve closing, simulate the Atkinson engine mode. 12-15:1 compression ratio during cruise but 9-10:1 to accommodate BOOST at WOT.
Even at WOT and full BOOST the HP/torque numbers look too low for a beasty of this size and weight.
The Hyundai Sonata's N/A 2.4L I4 DFI 198HP engine with 11.3 CR gets 35 hwy.
That would mean, to me, that Ford's 2.0L I4 DFI were it N/A and with 11.3 CR should get hwy FE in the same range or even better.
2.0L vs 2.4L should improve FE by 15-20%...?
Then add the extra weight of the new EXplorer back in?
Back to 35MPG hwy.
How much HP does it take to move the new Explorer along briskly on level terrain at 70MPH...?
But the real bottom line is that while a N/A 2.0L DFI engine would provide absolutely STELLAR FE, it would not meet the acceleration criteria of the typical US buyer.
So why not have "both"..??
A 2.4L DFI I4 that runs in Otto N/A mode(***1) for low engine loads/loading, transitions into /Atkinson cycle mode(***2) for moderate engine loads/loading, and then transitions into Miller cycle mode(***3) for heavier (WOT) engine loads/loading, hard acceleration, say.
***1 Native/base compression ratio of ~15:1.
***2 Delayed intake valve closing, effective CR of 12:1.
*** 3 Wastegate closes and additional intake valve closing delay reduces effective non-boost CR to 10:1 to provide for intercooled BOOST
Wanted to compare a non-turbo DFI engine with Ford's turboed DFI. Not a lot of choices.
Otto cycle: With a low cylinder A/F charge fill, the higher the CR is, within reason, the better.
Atkinson cycle: Once the cylinder A/F charge level begins reaching the point wherein detonation, dieseling, is a threat then CR MUST be "effectively" reduced. Delaying the intake valve closing via e/VVT-i, thereby forcing a portion of the charge back into the intake manifold, will not only accomplish that but will also retain a fairly high engine efficiency.
Miller cycle: In order to accommodate intercooled BOOST the CR must now be reduced to something in the range of 10:1. Effective CR under boost will still be, can be, as high as 12:1.
The current RX450h V6 engine and I suppose the HH engine, uses e/VVT-i (Extended Variable Valve Timing w/Intelligence) for transitioning between modes. e/VVT-i is used to vary the intake valve closing timing delay to transition the engine from Otto cycle mode, 13:1 native/base compression ratio, into Atkinson cycle mode, 10:1 effective compression ratio, as the cylinder charge level rises.
The "problem" with an Atkinson cycle engine is that in return for the HIGH engine efficiency you loose PERFORMANCE/POWER. A 3.0L engine is effectively reduced to a ~2.4L engine. But you can return the POWER level to that of the 3.0L by simply transitioning the engine into Miller cycle mode, COMPRESS and COOL the charge that enters the combustion chamber.
Yes, granted, but...
In order to use intercooled boost to raise the "effective" compression ratio you MUST start with a LOW base/native compression ratio during OFF-BOOST operation. In Ford's case this is ~10:1, absolutely SUB-STANDARD for a DFI engine that can easily have a 12:1 CR.
The majority of highway operational time for this engine will be in detuned/derated mode. POOR FE relative to a non-turbo DFI engine.
I think I'd wait for a DFI V6 (puzzle as to why this isn't already available) and the F/awd system that I can easily convert to RWD with "part-time" 4WD capability
Yeah, not too many cross -shopping the Sho with the Panamera. I don't get the Panamera anyway. Kind of like a 4 seat Corvette, if you know what I mean? I think it dilutes the Porsche mystique. Of course, if it makes money, Ferdinand did the right thing, I suppose.
Check ZIP 06033.
http://www.facebook.com/FordExplorer
It would be great to hear all of your submissions
Also, you have to know how to drive a four wheeler and alot of the flatlanders haven't a clue.
I drive a Toyota with a sign in the window saying 12 mpg.Yep, going to look @ a Ford.
Two questions:
Does anyone have any reliability info on the tires?
Could I get the dealer to exchange the Hankook for another better known brand?
You can check the reviews at TireRack but remember that OEM tires in general don't have a good reputation for tread life.
And yeah, the dealer may be willing to swap 'em out. Or a local tire store may give you a good trade-in price for them on a different set before you start putting miles on them.
Try Tire Rack to try to find out some info about them.
Any tire exchange can be negotiated during the purchase process.
Ford is putting a lot of their reputation on the line with the new Explorer, so I don't think they are going to cheap out on the tires.
It's not like the old days.
'edit' I just saw Steve's post.
Which Hankooks come on this truck? H724, H725, H727, or something else?
The XLT I test drove on Saturday had Michelins - personally I've never had a good experience with Michelin tires and would prefer getting the Hankook.
I replaced them with Michelin LTX M/S2. Which are suppose to be a great tire. I'm not happy with their winter performance, but they are great in the dry/rain. They definitely ride harder than the OEM tires, but I've gotten use to it.
Once the Michelins are worn out, it will be time for a new vehicle, if the Expe will last even that long.
You must be one of those flatlanders that don't need a true "AWD" system or else you're willing to disregard the poor safety record of F/awd vehicles on adverse condition roadbeds.
Or maybe a clone of the Porsche Cayenne or the VW equivalent.
Were I in charge at Ford I would "license" the Cayenne design in totality, including the Cayenne hybrid w/DFI but without the forced induction.
Fuel will undoubtedly hit $4.00 this week.
Ford Explorer, FWD gas-guzzling GAS-HOG...!
Wrong time and place.
Ford Explorer, FWD gas-guzzling GAS-HOG...!
Here we go again.
I've seen several new Explorers on the road here. I was getting my Expedition serviced at my local Ford dealer a few weeks ago and they had 3 on the lot parked next to service with a sold tag on them.
As for being a gas hog, I guess your right it if you compare it to something like a CRV. But it's fuel economy is pretty good compared to other SUVs that offer similar size and room.
I hope you're over at the Dodge Durago spewing your BS about FE too. It and the Grand Cherokee are worse. Toyota Highlander? Very nice vehicle that sells well and gets about the same economy 1 mpg less highway than the Explorer. Honda Pilot? 1mpg less city/hwy.