alpha1847

Completely agree on 4wd system packaging. Sasquatch is overkill for what I want. Jeep expanded the availability of their full-time system and LSD to all but base model. I hope Ford adapts.

I'll admit, being a little passive aggressive here, but why does Ford make it so hard to get a heated steering wheel on the new Bronco? Doesn't look like you can get it on Big Bend and you have to get $3600 Lux package on Outer Banks? For a vehicle designed to maximize open air driving, seems like a disappointing choice.

I'm considering upgrading my 2017 Ecoboost Premium convertible for a 2020 and trying to figure out all the benefits. Does anyone know the following for sure? Whether the MagneRide comes standard on the EB premium cv? It's suggested in the build tool, but I can't find any confirmation in the detailed specs. Also suspicious is that it's not listed as standard on the GT Premium cv, which seems odd (but at least it's listed in the options for GT) Whether the 3.55 diff that comes with the EB HP package is a TORSEN? Not called out explicitly, but would Ford really use that many variations across all models? One of my biggest dislikes in my current Mustang is the traditional LSD - your really can't make a turn without squealing the tires. Whether Ford Performance is planning anything for the EB HP? My 2017 was the last year they offered a meaningful package (came with the GT350 air intake and an optimized chip). The HP version is supposed to be more durable and have better cooling, so I was hoping something might be in the pipeline.

21 mile range is a bit better than expected. We are nearing the end of our lease on our 2016 XC90 T8 PHEV. I was really hoping the GT would be an option, but it looks like it won't be available in time for us. This makes me want it more. Our 2016 only had a range of 12 miles and it's usually less in the real world.

Thought about that, but that would be too low. I wouldn't expect the GT to beat it's closest competition, the XC90 T8, but the T8 gets 55 MPGe with a comparable electric range. 32 would be disappointingly low.

I have been anxiously awaiting the official ratings, but even though there is still nothing posted on the official EPA site, the online configuration tool is now quoting an impossibly high rating of 30/34! https://shop.lincoln.com/lab/aviator/#/select/ I don't see any way that could be accurate, but you have to wonder how a typo could get this far. Then again, maybe they worked in a few, unadvertised GT-specific powertrain tweaks like dynamic cylinder deactivation (actually, why does Ford seem so disinterested in this tech?), electric cam phasers that allow on-demand Atkinson cycle, etc (kidding - too big of a gap to close). Other than the taller axle ratio that comes with the GT, which might marginally help the highway number, I don't see any way this is possible.

I really like the Aviator, but have you priced one out? The base Grand Touring for about $70k is pretty much in line with the market and I would be fine with that. However, if you want adaptive cruise control, you have to add a $7600 package! I think that is absurd. I'm just frustrated. I really wanted to swap my Volvo XC90 T8 PHEV for the Aviator GT, but this makes the price gap too big to justify.

So, I was excited to see Ford finally made it available: https://shop.ford.com/build/explorer/2020/ .....but my excitement faded quicky. The Limited model was my target, being the only trim offering the hybrid powertrain. First, it confirmed you can no longer get the multi-contour seats on the Limited, but far worse was the revelation that they only allow you to get the minivan seats in the second row! The latter is a complete non-starter for me. Really disappointing.

Option packages on Limited are disappointing. Looks like they are taking away the ability to get the multi-contour seats. That's a real bummer for anyone looking at the Hybrid. I still don't get why they aren't offering the hybrid in Platinum trim either. I was counting on those massaging seats to convince my wife into giving up her XC90 T8 for the Explorer Hybrid.

I would add a few more.... 1. The newer, Ti-VCT version of the 3.5 Ecoboost (this is used on the F-150, but the older, intake-only VCT versions are used everywhere else) 2. Adding the remaining features (other than HIDs) that you can get on the limited but not the sport - power folder rear seats and heated steering wheel 3. Multi-contour seats - why this is offered on the Taurus but not the Explorer baffles me. 4. 8-speed auto (maybe just on the lower-volume Sport for starters) 5. The ability to use your sync app for remote starting 6. Both exterior mirrors should be electrochromic and have auto-reverse tilt-down

I think what most complainers do not understand is that EPA estimates are more for their relative values than their absolute values. There are far too many variables to predict what drivers will get in their own real world driving. The point is how different vehicles compare under the same conditions. Sure, the Fusion Hybrid is no lock to get 47, but neither is the Camry Hybrid a lock to get it's 41mpgs. At least the Fusion has a higher ceiling under the same conditions. The bottom line is that the Fusion will still be better than the Camry for almost everyone.

At the very least, it's availability should be expanded on most models. Take the Explorer. It seems silly that it is not even an option on the XLT. It should be part of the My Ford Touch package, in my opinion. Dodge offers this option on all but the base Durango. For me, it is really the reason I have not bought one. I do not want to spend the money on a Limited just to get this option. While it is less of an issue for me, similar deal on the Fusion. To only offer it on the Titanium seems silly. Look at the competition. Ford acts like this is some new, exclusive option. They need to catch up.

While possible, that just doesn't seem probable. I just don't see how adding less than 200lbs and the little bit of drag from Ford's lightweight, FWD-biased system would drop the mileage that much. In most cases, these systems lost about 1 mpg in the city and 1-2 on the highway, and that's usually with a higher final drive ratio, which might not be needed with the Ecoboost. It has to be a supply issue, as they are trying to roll this out to the Explorer, Edge and Taurus all around the same time. I believe the Focus may get a version as well. I just wish Ford suggest it was in the works.

Maybe, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out AWD is popular in crossovers and SUVs. I think the success of the Ecoboost is a forgone conclusion. Ford has priced it as a reasonable upgrade.

My hope is that this is just about volume of 2.0 Ecoboost engines the first year. I doubt it's performance. Adding less than 200lbs and the very little drag that a modern, light-weight AWD system adds these days is unlikely to have a big impact. I can still complain about this, because it stops me from purchasing an otherwise fine vehicle. Again, my point is that I'd bet there are many other consumers like me.