Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Ford Explorer Ford Explorer Mercury Mountaineer 2006 and newer
841 messages, Last post on Nov 24, 2009 at 10:05 AM
You are in the Ford Explorer Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: daryll44 (May 22, 2007 4:53 am) See the new calculations for your old vehicle here. Roughly 90-95% of our driving is in the city and we get 13 MPG exactly. I'm not unhappy with that but I can see why others would be.
|
|
|
Replying to: daryll44 (May 22, 2007 4:53 am) The mileage hasn't actually changed, just the government rating. In the case of something like the Freestyle, it will go down but the old sticker showed a number that was pretty easy to get. For the majority of vehicles, the new number is likely to be closer to the truth. |
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (May 22, 2007 5:44 am) MY POINT is that ratcheting down the already scary OLD numbers is going to hurt Explorer (and similar) sales much more than vehicles getting mpgs in the 20s. 15 sounds bad....13 sounds REAL bad.
|
|
|
Replying to: daryll44 (May 22, 2007 5:55 am) Most people don't care about those two things so the CUVs are more attractive to most folks, myself included, and I think that and the slightly better fuel economy are definitely issues Ford has to address with the Explorer for the future. Rumors in the big car mags have stated that the next Explorer will be a unibody and use the new Duratec35 motor which should give it more power and much better fuel economy. We'll see. |
|
Explorer has no reason to go unibody. It already has one of the most expensive frames of any SUV in its class plus exclusive independant rear suspension. Only FORD and NISSAN have body on frames SUVS with independant Rear Suspension.
|
|
|
Replying to: mschmal (May 26, 2007 10:59 am) Considering what Ford will have on the lot when that is rumored to happen I totally agree with you. I'm just reporting what C&D and MT have written recently. |
|
|
I agree - I think this is dumb. But it's a pre- ARM idea, and maybe he'll nix it. I'm sure it's been done for CAFE reasons - and I suppose the Unibody would work as well as the Grand Cherokee does now, but I prefer the toughness of the Explorer frame for towing and rough service. In my mind, the Explorer has always been the gold standard of Mid-Sized SUVs and until recently, America agreed with me. I just don't see why it's so important that that be ruined.
|
|
|
Replying to: nvbanker (May 27, 2007 3:29 pm) |
|
|
HP/Torque and MPG figures be for the Duratec35 engine??? You may not know MPG, but the HP and Tork should be a known amount...
|
|
|
Replying to: marsha7 (May 31, 2007 5:01 pm) I've also read a rumor that the D35 will be the V6 for the base F-150 as well and that power will be decreased somewhat to allow torque to be produced at a lower RPM. I can't speak to what the numbers would be for a truck version if they do that but the numbers above are what we know from the current version. Future Lincoln models will get a 3.7L version of the D35 so who knows, that may be used for the trucks too. As for MPG, the 4546 lb. 2007 Mazda AWD CX-9 is rated at 16/22 mpg using the Mazda version of the D35 engine. I believe that rating is with the new EPA system too but I could be wrong. Being that the Explorer is roughly the same size and weight you can see the slight fuel econ benefit that engine can deliver while being more refined and powerful to boot. HP in the CX-9 is 263  6250 RPM, torque is 249 4500 RPM. Edmunds did 0-60 in 7.7 seconds in their FWD tester which was 200 lbs lighter FWIW.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Ford Explorer Ford Explorer Mercury Mountaineer 2006 and newer
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Mercury Mountaineer
2010 Ford Explorer
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
