Ford Explorer!

[Mustangfan2003]

Maybe they would if it was worth a damn off road.

I still doubt that.  I know a lot of people who spent the extra money to get the Z71 or FX4 off road package on their brand new pick up and guess what it, it never goes off the pavement. 

[Rupert]

Well, Ford won't get my work budget's money, because nothing they make is a real SUV, and I'm not the only person in this position.

[Onslaught]

No, if you seem them parked next to each other they appear identical, I am sure all the glass is interchangeable. If there are any changes they are minor.

The parts are not interchangeable. And even a minor change is still a change.

[2o6]

Are others really arguing this - that they're not two entirely different cars??? (Yes, they are.)

And no, glass is NOT interchangeable.

They're different, but Toyota saved a lot of developmental costs by simply freshening the old model. IIRC, the new Camry's platform is pretty close to the one it replaced.

[GoCougs]

They're different, but Toyota saved a lot of developmental costs by simply freshening the old model. IIRC, the new Camry's platform is pretty close to the one it replaced.

Again, it's a complete different car; not a "refresh" of the old model - different engines/transmissions, different electronics, different interior, different track/wheelbase and most notably, different chassis (different body panels + glass = by definition a different unit-body chassis).

[SVT32V]

Are others really arguing this - that they're not two entirely different cars??? (Yes, they are.)

And no, glass is NOT interchangeable.

Are you saying they are a completely different chassis, not related, totally ground up?

Surely you are not, and if so what eveidence do you have?

[MX793]

(different body panels + glass = by definition a different unit-body chassis).

The current US Focus has different glass and body panels than the last version and is NOT a completely different chassis.

[GoCougs]

Are you saying they are a completely different chassis, not related, totally ground up?

Surely you are not, and if so what eveidence do you have?

The current US Focus has different glass and body panels than the last version and is NOT a completely different chassis.

The implication with "new" body panels is different wheelbase, track, height, etc. = a completely different chassis, not the "new" body panels of the Focus refresh which are simply a rehash of some of the lines on the same panels sitting on the same chassis (meaning, wheelbase and all that is the same).

[MX793]

The implication with "new" body panels is different wheelbase, track, height, etc. = a completely different chassis, not the "new" body panels of the Focus refresh which are simply a rehash of some of the lines on the same panels sitting on the same chassis (meaning, wheelbase and all that is the same).

Actually, wheelbase is the only dimension of the latest Focus that hasn't changed.

And then you have the Infiniti M and Infiniti G.  Different wheelbase, height, length, track, body panels, glass...  Different platforms?  Not so much.

[GoCougs]

Actually, wheelbase is the only dimension of the latest Focus that hasn't changed.

And then you have the Infiniti M and Infiniti G.  Different wheelbase, height, length, track, body panels, glass...  Different platforms?  Not so much.

"Platform" is too generic a term which is why I didn't mention it (meaning platform != chassis). The G and M sit on completely different chassis.

[the Teuton]

The current US Focus has different glass and body panels than the last version and is NOT a completely different chassis.

I'm pretty sure that other than the coupe, the other Focuses share glass between the old and new models.

[Atomic]

Hold on... Fwd?  Wut?!?!

and the engine choice over the 3.5 liter v6 will be an extra cost 2.0 liter ecoboost 4 cylinder engine. mpg: 14/20 (v6) and 18/26 (4 cylinder with ecoboost). source: automotive news, july 26, 2010.

[ifcar]

No, if you seem them parked next to each other they appear identical, I am sure all the glass is interchangeable. If there are any changes they are minor.

Not at all. Look at the photos, the beltline is higher and the c-pillar stretched out more on the current Camry. The styling is similar; the car is different.

[SVT32V]

"Platform" is too generic a term which is why I didn't mention it (meaning platform != chassis). The G and M sit on completely different chassis.

Semantics at best, but auto manufacturers do not agree.

Fox chassis - Mustang, mark7, t-bird, ltd. etc.

FM chassis (this is nissan talk) - 350Z, G35, FX35/FX45 etc.

End of story.

[Onslaught]

Well I've actually cut up and welded together many a Camry over the years. I'm not sure if the new one is completely different than the previous one. But every part from the radiator support,  front aprons, rear floor pan, rear and front frame rails, rear body panel and all sheet metal that I've put in are different. I'm not a Camry expert (and don't want to be) but I've not seen all that much that looks the same.

[SVT666]

Not impressed with the FWD biased AWD system because I really like the RWD biased AWD system in our Explorer.  Other than that, it looks fantastic.  If you look at the ground clearance and the 4x4 system that comes in this new Explorer, I would venture to call it a unibody SUV, and not a crossover.

[Rupert]

The ground clearance is pretty mediocre...

[SVT666]

The ground clearance is pretty mediocre...

Which is different from the current model how?

[Rupert]

Which is at least RWD based, and still pretty much blows.

[SVT666]

Which is at least RWD based, and still pretty much blows.

Looking at the side profile of the new Explorer, it really doesn't look any lower then the current model.  I've taken my Explorer off-road a few times since we got it and if you're careful, this thing will go further then 90% of the people who leave the pavement with their vehicles will ever go.

[Rupert]

I had an Expedition for a field rig for a few weeks this summer, which is pretty much the same as the Explorer. It's great on gravel and non-technical 4WD stuff. In fact, better than any solid-axle rig, because the IRS keeps it on track and soaks up bumps at speed really well. However, on technical stuff, it's shit. I do not judge the quality of a 4x4, or rate something with A/4WD as sufficiently 4x4-y based on a relative scale of what most people will use it for, because most people should be driving a sedan, if we're talking functionality.

[2o6]

I had an Expedition for a field rig for a few weeks this summer, which is pretty much the same as the Explorer. It's great on gravel and non-technical 4WD stuff. In fact, better than any solid-axle rig, because the IRS keeps it on track and soaks up bumps at speed really well. However, on technical stuff, it's shit. I do not judge the quality of a 4x4, or rate something with A/4WD as sufficiently 4x4-y based on a relative scale of what most people will use it for, because most people should be driving a sedan, if we're talking functionality.

Sedans suck.

[Rupert]

Which is why I said, "if we're talking functionality," duh.

Actually, I like sedans. I said that so some idiot like you wouldn't come in all but OMG no one likes those and choice and blah blah blah.

[SVT666]

I had an Expedition for a field rig for a few weeks this summer, which is pretty much the same as the Explorer. It's great on gravel and non-technical 4WD stuff. In fact, better than any solid-axle rig, because the IRS keeps it on track and soaks up bumps at speed really well. However, on technical stuff, it's shit. I do not judge the quality of a 4x4, or rate something with A/4WD as sufficiently 4x4-y based on a relative scale of what most people will use it for, because most people should be driving a sedan, if we're talking functionality.

I've ran into a few spots where the Explorer couldn't go, but for the most part it's taken me everywhere I wanted to end up.  To me that's good enough.  Ford needs a new age Bronco II.

[GoCougs]

Semantics at best, but auto manufacturers do not agree.

Fox chassis - Mustang, mark7, t-bird, ltd. etc.

FM chassis (this is nissan talk) - 350Z, G35, FX35/FX45 etc.

End of story.

No, actually. Ford called the Fox the Fox platform and Nissan calls the FM the FM platform.

But to use the Mustang to illustrate "platform" vs. chassis. The 3rd gen ('79 - '93) and 4th gen ('94 - '04) Mustangs both sat on the Fox "platform." However, the 4th gen was not merely an update of the 3rd gen - it was an entirely different Mustang with an entirely different chassis.

Ditto for Nissan and the 1st and 2nd gen G and Z; same FM "platform" but entirely different cars with an entirely different chassis. And same with the new Camry - entirely different car on an entirely different chassis.

[Nethead]

The EPA wraps up the last major unknown (the mileage of the V6) of the 2011 Explorer as currently configured for sale to the public--the EcoBoost I4 isn't available yet, so that's an issue for whenever the EcoBoost I4 enters production.  Here's the article from www.leftlanenews.com:

It?s official: ?11 Ford Explorer V6 rated at 25 MPG highway

Monday Ford began production of its all-new 2011 Explorer in order to keep up with the 15,000 pre-orders that had doubled initial estimates. Production also began nearly a week before the automaker had the official mileage ratings back from the environmental protection agency (EPA) regarding the SUV?s fuel economy.

Now, thanks to a post on Ford?s Explorer fan page on Facebook via GreenCarReports, we have learned that the new unibody-based Explorer will achieve a full 25 percent higher fuel economy than the outgoing model. To be exact, the new Explorer is rated at 17 miles per gallon city and 25 mpg highway with the V6 and two-wheel drive ? compared to just 14 city and 20 highway mpg in the 2010 model it replaces.

Ford says that this rating puts the Explorer at the top of its class for V6 fuel economy, beating the more off road-oriented 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee by one city and two highway mpg.

Also keep in mind that the fuel economy rating is for the 290 horsepower and 255 lb-ft. of torque V6 engine, the only engine available at launch, and not the mid-year addition 2.0-liter Ecoboost inline-four that is expected to return even higher fuel economy.

[r0tor]

Mediocre considering its normally full time fwd and a girlish suv...

[Nethead]

Mediocre considering its normally full time fwd and a girlish suv...

r0tor:  Yep, the Explorer ain't an early Bronco--nothing out there is except another early Bronco, like mine.  Doubtless there'll be comparos with the GC, various GM offerings, and some imports soon, and more of what it's made of will become known.  It will be interesting to see if the comparos will include the Cayenne--or will they go with some upper price cut-off to give the mid-priced SUVs a shot at a win?  Motor Trend already picked theirs...

[Secret Chimp]

25 mpg doesn't seem terrible for a V6 car with a big frontal area. The old one couldn't even touch 20 mpg.

[SVT666]

25 mpg doesn't seem terrible for a V6 car with a big frontal area. The old one couldn't even touch 20 mpg.

I drove mine from Seattle to Kelowna (where I live) and got 22 mpg.  Mind you, I olny got that by not stopping and kept the cruise on the whole time.  The EPA doesn't rate it that high, and neither should they since we average about 14 mpg.