RichardJensen Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 How are you going to move the Explorer any further up market or make it any more desirable on a FWD/AWD based platform? You can't. It's maxed out now with the 3.5L EB. If you have a platform available paid for by Lincoln it would be stupid not to use it for Explorer - IF YOU'VE ALREADY DECIDED to take Explorer upmarket. Are we back to the idea that the Explorer needs the 5.0L V8? It's not going to happen. And if Lincoln is paying for the platform, then we're right back at the rather unusual suggestion that Ford should add cost to the Explorer without adding value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 conversation aside, Im getting bloody sticker shock as of late...how the hell people can afford some of these vehicles is beyond me....I dont doubt 10 year financing soon.... Percentage of Americans buying new cars is steadily decreasing. Population is growing faster than the number of new car sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 And if Lincoln is paying for the platform, then we're right back at the rather unusual suggestion that Ford should add cost to the Explorer without adding value. There is value to be added, you're just not willing to admit it. You could use Mustang and F150 powertrains with true offroad capability just like the old explorers. You can also do SVT versions. Is that going to double Explorer sales? No but it will add incremental sales beyond what's there without compromising current buyers. That is value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Are we back to the idea that the Explorer needs the 5.0L V8? It's not going to happen. And if Lincoln is paying for the platform, then we're right back at the rather unusual suggestion that Ford should add cost to the Explorer without adding value. no V8...doesnt need it, 3.5 eco or 2.7 eco. Aluminum weight savings will help power to weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Percentage of Americans buying new cars is steadily decreasing. Population is growing faster than the number of new car sales. showing my age, but i remember freaking when the Mustang Convertibles came in over 21k....I remember saying "Who the heck is gonna pay THAT! ' 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) There is value to be added, you're just not willing to admit it. You could use Mustang and F150 powertrains with true offroad capability just like the old explorers. You can also do SVT versions. Is that going to double Explorer sales? No but it will add incremental sales beyond what's there without compromising current buyers. That is value. 1 - "true offroad capability" is not a function of driven wheels, and the old Explorers were soft-roaders just like these. Let's not engage in revisionist history. 2 - The only Mustang/F150 powertrain that isn't essentially available on the Explorer is the 5.0L V8, and, again, CAFE. 3 - SVT: In the end your business case for this product hinges on the ability to do an SVT variant. What other product besides the Mustang has such a business case? You can do everything else you suggest with a FWD/AWD layout. Edited October 15, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 1 - "true offroad capability" is not a function of driven wheels, and the old Explorers were soft-roaders just like these. Let's not engage in revisionist history. 2 - The only Mustang/F150 powertrain that isn't essentially available on the Explorer is the 5.0L V8, and, again, CAFE. 3 - SVT? Really? Your business case for this product hinges on the ability to do an SVT variant? What other product besides the Mustang has such a business case? will say it again....2.7 ecoboost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 That's not going to remain RWD exclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 That's not going to remain RWD exclusive. I dont recall saying it was going to....I must have missed something with this constant deferring to the V8, I doubt it will seen in anything but the Mustang and trucks...the 2.7 will become a mainstream engine in both FWD AND RWD applications that need 300-350hp,. because the 2.0 doesnt cut it when curb weights get to Explorer territory. The 2.3, maybe, but the 2.7 is a much better bet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) The argument is that an RWD Explorer can have significantly more powerful engines. I consider that to be a rather thin argument. Because of CAFE, I don't think you're going to see a 5.0L V8 in any Explorer, given that you can't even get one in the Expedition. Which pretty much leaves you with the higher output RWD 3.5L vs. the FWD/AWD variant. A distinction that, IMO, is going to be significantly narrowed by the next FWD transmission. -- As before, I think you've got a very, very thin case that an RWD Explorer will raise transaction prices by an amount in excess of the FWD Explorer sufficient to pay for the various excess costs associated with RWD. Edited October 15, 2014 by RichardJensen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 The argument is that an RWD Explorer can have significantly more powerful engines. I consider that to be a rather thin argument. Because of CAFE, I don't think you're going to see a 5.0L V8 in any Explorer, given that you can't even get one in the Expedition. Which pretty much leaves you with the higher output RWD 3.5L vs. the FWD/AWD variant. A distinction that, IMO, is going to be significantly narrowed by the next FWD transmission. -- As before, I think you've got a very, very thin case that an RWD Explorer will raise transaction prices by an amount in excess of the FWD Explorer sufficient to pay for the various excess costs associated with RWD. then I wouldnt be so sure you would be correct in assuming that pertains to the implementation of a V8*....right NOW the 3.5 eco boost is limited both torque and HP wise due to flimsy FWD transaxles.....so, choices are RWD or beef up, completely replace transmissions, and I believe to ultimately uncork the ecos potential wont happen within that nice compact FWD integrated trans design.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 The argument is that an RWD Explorer can have significantly more powerful engines. I consider that to be a rather thin argument. Because of CAFE, I don't think you're going to see a 5.0L V8 in any Explorer, given that you can't even get one in the Expedition. Which pretty much leaves you with the higher output RWD 3.5L vs. the FWD/AWD variant. A distinction that, IMO, is going to be significantly narrowed by the next FWD transmission. -- As before, I think you've got a very, very thin case that an RWD Explorer will raise transaction prices by an amount in excess of the FWD Explorer sufficient to pay for the various excess costs associated with RWD. correct me if I am wrong, but FWD transmission HAVE to be developed in unison with the engine for packaging purposes, RWD with SEPERATE transmissions have alot more leeway, space, and because of that size and potential strength. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 then I wouldnt be so sure you would be correct in assuming that pertains to the implementation of a V8*....right NOW the 3.5 eco boost is limited both torque and HP wise due to flimsy FWD transaxles.....so, choices are RWD or beef up, completely replace transmissions, and I believe to ultimately uncork the ecos potential wont happen within that nice compact FWD integrated trans design.... As you may recall, the 6F35 is being replaced. It seems quite unlikely that it will be replaced with a model that has similar limitations on power output. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 As you may recall, the 6F35 is being replaced. It seems quite unlikely that it will be replaced with a model that has similar limitations on power output. not in a RWD configuration...making the trans compact enough to fit in a FWD configuration has its design/ size limitations, that bump in the floorboards eliminates those parameters....that said, an F1 trans is TINY.....but thats going off on a George Hamilton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 1 - "true offroad capability" is not a function of driven wheels, and the old Explorers were soft-roaders just like these. Let's not engage in revisionist history. It's a functionality of having a full time AWD or 4WD with a low range and you're not getting either one with the current platform/drivetrain. 2 - The only Mustang/F150 powertrain that isn't essentially available on the Explorer is the 5.0L V8, and, again, CAFE. We know there is at least one and probably two mustang high output engines we haven't seen yet and at least one will be above the 5.0L V8. You can also unleash the 3.5L EB and eliminate the torque control. 3 - SVT: In the end your business case for this product hinges on the ability to do an SVT variant. What other product besides the Mustang has such a business case? You can do everything else you suggest with a FWD/AWD layout. If Ford can do a SVT Mustang and a SVT Raptor then there is no reason to think they can't do a SVT Explorer based on the same engines/drivetrains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 As you may recall, the 6F35 is being replaced. It seems quite unlikely that it will be replaced with a model that has similar limitations on power output. Who says the 6F35 is being replaced? If you need more power then just use the 6F50 or 6F55 already used in Edge/Taurus and Lincoln versions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Who says the 6F35 is being replaced? If you need more power then just use the 6F50 or 6F55 already used in Edge/Taurus and Lincoln versions. 8-9 speeds be a comin.....now imagine an uncorked 2.7 at approx 350, and the 3.5 going to 400 ( both are easily attainable ) with and 8 speed trans...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) It's a functionality of having a full time AWD or 4WD with a low range and you're not getting either one with the current platform/drivetrain. We know there is at least one and probably two mustang high output engines we haven't seen yet and at least one will be above the 5.0L V8. You can also unleash the 3.5L EB and eliminate the torque control. If Ford can do a SVT Mustang and a SVT Raptor then there is no reason to think they can't do a SVT Explorer based on the same engines/drivetrains. You're not getting full time AWD or 4-Lo from *any* Ford AWD system, front or rear, at this point in time. Going RWD does not make it easier for Ford to do this. Either way, they still have to either engineer or purchase new components. And it has not, in any event, been established that full time AWD is something that adds value to the Explorer. Is there a comparable case where full time AWD adds value in excess of cost? These high output Mustang engines--why would Ford put them in Explorers? As with the high output engines, the ability to build an SVT Explorer is hardly justification for building one. One could equip the Explorer with a novelty gag gift package including various whoopee cushions, rubber vomit and plastic dog doo, but who would want such a thing? Who says the 6F35 is being replaced? If you need more power then just use the 6F50 or 6F55 already used in Edge/Taurus and Lincoln versions. The 6F is being replaced: http://wot.motortrend.com/gm-ford-sign-moa-for-joint-development-of-9-10-speed-automatics-269237.html Edited October 15, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 You're not getting full time AWD or 4-Lo from *any* Ford AWD system, front or rear, at this point in time. Going RWD does not make it easier for Ford to do this. Either way, they still have to either engineer or purchase new components. And it has not, in any event, been established that full time AWD is something that adds value to the Explorer. Is there a comparable case where full time AWD adds value in excess of cost? These high output Mustang engines--why would Ford put them in Explorers? As with the high output engines, the ability to build an SVT Explorer is hardly justification for building one. One could equip the Explorer with a novelty gag gift package including various whoopee cushions, rubber vomit and plastic dog doo, but who would want such a thing? The 6F is being replaced: http://wot.motortrend.com/gm-ford-sign-moa-for-joint-development-of-9-10-speed-automatics-269237.html its not necessarily HP that the engines could betuned for Richard, torque is King, can benefit mileage and increases towing capabilty..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Look. I'm tired of discussing this. I do not find any of these points any more persuasive now than they were last week. It remains, from my perspective, a bunch of edge cases, many of which are CAFE negative, and none of which have a demonstrated value to current consumers (as opposed to, say, aluminum in the F150 which promises both more capability and better economy) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Look. I'm tired of discussing this. I do not find any of these points any more persuasive now than they were last week. It remains, from my perspective, a bunch of edge cases, many of which are CAFE negative, and none of which have a demonstrated value to current Look. I'm tired of discussing this. I do not find any of these points any more persuasive now than they were last week. It remains, from my perspective, a bunch of edge cases, many of which are CAFE negative, and none of which have a demonstrated value to current consumers (as opposed to, say, aluminum in the F150 which promises both more capability and better economy) which happens to be as speculative as our points of veiw...two sides of the coin which will no doubt gather more focus as time progress's...I say bring it on if it makes sense, and so far, watching other decisions, theres no doubt in my mind if it does see light of day, the ultimate reasoning will make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 You're not getting full time AWD or 4-Lo from *any* Ford AWD system, front or rear, at this point in time. Wrong again. 2015 Expedition: No matter the road conditions: snow, ice or gravel, the available Control Trac® 4-Wheel- Drive System helps provide sure-footed traction. It does so by dividing engine torque from front to rear. The system operates in one of four driver-activated modes:• 2H (4x2): Power is delivered to rear wheels only. For normal on-road, dry pavement driving. • 4A (4x4 AUTO): In this mode, electronic control four-wheel-drive power is delivered to all four wheels, as required, for increased traction. For all on-road conditions, including dry road surfaces, wet pavement, snow or gravel. • 4H (4x4): This setting provides electronically locked four-wheel drive to front and rear wheels. Intended only for severe winter or off-road conditions, such as deep snow, ice or shallow sand. Not recommended for use on dry pavement. • 4L (4x4 LOW): When extra power at reduced speeds is required, this electronically locked four-wheel-drive mode should be used. Used for off-road, low-speed operation or when extra power is required in situations such as climbing steep grades, going through deep sand or pulling a boat out of water. Not recommended for use on dry pavement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) Okay, so you can get 4-Lo on the expedition. Do you see where it says: "Not recommended for use on dry pavement"? That's because the Control-Trac on the Expy, like the Control-Trac on every other Ford product, does not have a center diff. So while you are correct that you can get 4-Lo on a Ford product, you cannot get a full-time AWD capable transfer case on a Ford product. Edited October 16, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 So while you are correct that you can get 4-Lo on a Ford product, you cannot get a full-time AWD capable transfer case on a Ford product. Are you back on the sinus medication? 4A (4x4 AUTO): In this mode, electronic control four-wheel-drive power is delivered to all four wheels, as required, for increased traction. For all on-road conditions, including dry road surfaces, wet pavement, snow or gravel. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking of the last Aviator and Mountaineer. Wasn't the 4A system the only one available for those models? I seem to remember it as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.