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
#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.
#305 of 716 Re: Cargo space, Explorer vs. Traverse vs. Expedition [wwest]
Aug 19, 2010 (7:50 am)
BMW? What are you talking about?
#306 of 716 Re: Not sure I totally agree with all your assessments, Explorerkid.... [wwest]
Aug 19, 2010 (8:09 am)
I personally don't know whether or not that's an accurate statement (re: many of us requiring off-road 4WD traction but NEVER go off-road), but I've always had a bad case of "Boyscout Syndrome"--that is to say I always tend to look at the worst-case scenario, and buy according to that. Overkill? Absolutely. But we do take our annual pilgrimage to OBX each year and do drive on the beach every day we're there. Off-roading was something I grew up with, our family enjoys it (even tho we only do it once a year) but few cross-overs on the market today would allow me to do that. My Subaru Outback does, but sadly my kids car seats are too large for it to be comfortable for everyone.
That's an interesting viewpoint about the "decline of the Explorer". Personally, I think it's a little more straight forward; I suspect it fell out of popularity because it filled a niche as a small-turned-mid-sized SUV until cross-overs came about. By then, there wasn't anything compelling enough to make people keep buying Explorers. The performance and gas mileage were crappy enough that people looking at that market segment for the room or towing capabilities just opted for the larger Expedition. Those who wanted better gas mileage and didn't need to go off-road likely looked towards the more efficient, more stylish more versatile cross over market. For whatever appeal Explorer brings to the current SUV/cross over market ...it doesn't bring enough of it.
The cross-over market right now--good, bad or otherwise--is really hot right now. Ford would be stupid not to jump on it by offering all its latest and greatest technologies to take advantage of this "boom". I think that effort is much more likely to generate sales rather than dumping next-gen engines and technology into aging SUV platforms which as a market segment has been losing steam over the last several years. And to be honest, do you really believe that a mere 250 ft/lbs of torque of the new V6 DFI motor is going to do anything spectacular in any of Ford's big, heavy non-cross over vehicles? Full size trucks and SUVs need big engines (or slightly smaller turbo/supercharged engines) to move them. Period.
#307 of 716 Re: Not sure I totally agree with all your assessments, Explorerkid.... [tgoodell]
Aug 19, 2010 (10:19 am)
But we do take our annual pilgrimage to OBX each year and do drive on the beach every day we're there. Off-roading was something I grew up with, our family enjoys it (even tho we only do it once a year) but few cross-overs on the market today would allow me to do that.
Autoblog takes 2011 Explorer to Dubai sand dunes
Doesn't sound like the beach would be a problem. Notice they buried it up to the axles and still managed to get out without a tow.
#308 of 716 Re: Cargo space, Explorer vs. Traverse vs. Expedition [loach]
Aug 19, 2010 (11:59 am)
"Cargo space is a primary concern for me because of all the crap I have to haul back and forth from my kids' colleges."
Just finished with all that. I think you'll probably find the Traverse ends up a bit bigger. However, you really need to think about usable space. I take a tape measure and check out 1) tailgate opening dimensions, 2) distance between wheels or seat clips (whichever are closer) and 3) measure the roof distance behind seat where you set it and top opening of tailgate (because they are usually sloped). These things are all going to really matter with the kind of stuff you'll be hauling because it goes from dorm to apartment. Honestly, no CUV is likely to be great. You may not like the image, but a minivan holds way more stuff. Otherwise, you may have to bite the bullet and buy an SUV like Expedition or Tahoe. I'm cheap, so I went with a minivan (which is also easier getting into and out of the seats).
#309 of 716 Re: Cargo space, Explorer vs. Traverse vs. Expedition [berri]
Aug 19, 2010 (12:18 pm)
Why wouldn't you just borrow a trailer or rent one 2 or 3 times a year?
#310 of 716 Re: Cargo space, Explorer vs. Traverse vs. Expedition [berri]
Aug 19, 2010 (12:47 pm)
Absolutely minivans blow away CUVs and even large SUVs (except Expedition EL and Suburban) in terms of cargo space. No disputing that. But my wife drove one for 10 years and has proclaimed that she is done with them. So unless I want one as my daily driver....