Last post on Oct 01, 2013 at 10:26 AM
You are in the Ford Explorer
What is this discussion about?
Ford Explorer, Ford Explorer Sport, Ford Explorer Sport Trac, Car Buying, SUV
#295 of 716 Re: Cargo space, Explorer vs. Traverse vs. Expedition [tbone_rare]
Aug 18, 2010 (9:36 am)
Cargo space is not my primary goal........ the point is I DO NOT BELIEVE the posted cargo space of the Traverse (116 cu ft). The Traverse is only 8 inches longer than the 2011 Explorer and the Traverse is 1/2 inch less in width than the Explorer........ so how in the world can you have 44% more cargo space in the Traverse?
I was leaning toward the Traverse until last year, however since the bankruptcy I am leaning toward a Ford SUV......... I do not like the fact the GM screwed all of those "mom and pop" bond holders. GM sold bonds for years in low denominations of under $1k to the public. It just does not sit well with me that they got their slate wiped clean at the expense of many retired people that relied on them for income. I do own 2 GM vehicles at the present time.......1986 Fiero GT and a 2002 Saturn. The Saturn needed a valve job at $69k and of course GM would do nothing for me...... so it would be hard for me to buy a Traverse, although it is a nice vehicle.
#296 of 716 Re: Cargo space, Explorer vs. Traverse vs. Expedition [keyssidecar]
Aug 18, 2010 (10:34 am)
I think I can shed some light on this because I've been struggling a bit with the same questions. I currently own a GMC Acadia with the 116.9 cu. ft. claimed cargo space. It is quite spacious, but I'm looking to replace it because it has been a troublesome vehicle and I also have fundamental problem with Government Motors. But that aside, here's what I've found in digging into the cargo numbers.
Yes, I suspect that GM might be fudging/gaming the numbers somehow. Car and Driver provides several "real-world" cargo tests when they review vehicles. One is the "beer case" test, where they see how many beer cases they can fit behind each row. Another is the "plywood" test, where they measure the largest piece of plywood they can fit with the back rows folded and the hatch closed. Consumer Reports also does a "real-world" test where they measure the volume of the largest rectangular "box" made of telescoping pipe that they can fit in behind the 2nd row with the hatch closed. Unfortunately, none of these tests are yet available for the 2011 Explorer, but here's some data from some competitors that shows that the Acadia/Traverse's 117 cubes doesn't necessarily translate into more real-world space. Note that I couldn't find numbers for some measures for the regular length Expedition, so I threw in the Nissan Armada instead just because I've shopped it.
Manufacturer claimed cargo space (cu. ft.):
C&D "Beer Case" test (# behind F/M/R seat)
C&D "Plywood" test (inches)
CR "Pipe Box" test (cu. ft)
Note that the boxier shaped vehicles (Pilot and Armada) compete very favorably in the real-world tests despite having smaller claimed cargo capacity than the curvier CX-9 and Acadia. At one point, I saw the minimum length/width of the 2011 Explorer's cargo area listed as 74.4 X 44.9 on C&D's website - I think it's since been deleted so I have no idea whether it was accurate. But if it was, I suspect the Explorer's real-world space might be comparable to the CX-9, but lagging pretty far behind the Acadia/Traverse, Pilot and large SUVs such as the Armada, Expedition, etc. If you're looking for a non-GM CUV with real-world space comparable to the Traverse, the Pilot might be a better bet (it's where I'm presently leaning).
Sorry for the long post, but I figured why not share some of my anal-retentive number-crunching.
#297 of 716 Re: Cargo space, Explorer vs. Traverse vs. Expedition [loach]
Aug 18, 2010 (10:43 am)
Another measure to look at is passenger volume. Here are those numbers (cu. ft):
2011 Explorer - 151.7 per Ford's specs. So maybe the Explorer won't be too far off the leaders.
How can the Acadia have only 1% more passenger volume than the Pilot, yet have 34% more cargo capacity? I smell BS.
#298 of 716 Re: Cargo space, Explorer vs. Traverse vs. Expedition [tbone_rare]
Aug 18, 2010 (10:53 am)
The reason fuel economy figures haven't been posted is they don't have them yet from the EPA. You can't advertise them until they're certified. Expect them to be class leading based on previous Ford efforts.
#299 of 716 Re: Cargo space, Explorer vs. Traverse vs. Expedition [akirby]
Aug 18, 2010 (11:11 am)
Or Ford simply doesn't wish to publically expose just how HORRID the "EcoBoost" gas guzzling engines are when compared to a N/A DFI engine of equal displacement.
#300 of 716 Re: Cargo space, Explorer vs. Traverse vs. Expedition [wwest]
Aug 18, 2010 (11:35 am)
Or you have no idea what you're talking about.
#301 of 716 Re: Cargo space, Explorer vs. Traverse vs. Expedition [loach]
Aug 18, 2010 (3:18 pm)
Hey loach, thanks for the interesting and informative reply. The "beer case" test makes sense......56 cases for the Acadia and 58 for the Pilot which reports about the same cargo space as the 2011 Explorer. So GM must be gaming these numbers. I expect Ford is planning to compete with GM with the Explorer vs the Acadia, Traverse and Envoy regarding size, mpg and cargo space. I will not consider a Jap car, so the Pilot is out...... I always try to buy an American car/suv from an American Company. I figure I can get another year out of my 1997 Expedition, so will at least wait to view the new Explorer in the "flesh" so to speak. I probably will not decide to purchase a new SUV till next spring or summer. Besides, Ford's products have been good to me over the years and they are building an even better product these days. Thanks again for your post...... you would think that "cargo space" should be measured the same by all companies...... just like mpg.
#302 of 716 Re: Cargo space, Explorer vs. Traverse vs. Expedition [akirby]
Aug 18, 2010 (3:51 pm)
Your right about the fuel eco figures. I got a reply from Ford yesterday from their marketing people which basically said the testing has been done, but EPA has not signed off on it yet so they can not advertise the mpg yet. I expect the Explorer 2011 edition to have a slightly better mpg than the Chevy Traverse, since it is slightly newer technology. The V6 in the Explorer is a slightly smaller engine which gives more horsepower (slightly more) than the Traverse.
#303 of 716 Re: Cargo space, Explorer vs. Traverse vs. Expedition [keyssidecar]
Aug 19, 2010 (5:39 am)
Don't want to start a whole "what is an American car?" debate here, but I'll just note that the Pilot is built in Lincoln, Alabama. I do like the idea of buying a Ford too, but my gut tells me from the number crunching I've done and the fact that the Explorer 3rd row is a 2-seater that the Explorer is just going to be a little too small for me compared to the GM Lambdas or Pilot. One thing I've noticed about Ford's Explorer marketing communications so far is they have not really mentioned the Lambdas as a competitor. More often vehicles like the Highlander get mentioned that have significantly less real-world cargo space (48/24/2 C&D beer cases). Cargo space is a primary concern for me because of all the crap I have to haul back and forth from my kids' colleges.
#304 of 716 Re: Cargo space, Explorer vs. Traverse vs. Expedition [loach]
Aug 19, 2010 (7:15 am)
Twice a year doesn't really warrant driving a BMW all year 'round.