Ford Everest...foreigners getting cool stuff again

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Olas
Mk1 Escort RS2000

Escort Cosworth

Sierra RS500

And the unforgettable, laughably insane

Ford RS200.


One could even add the Focus RS500 to that lofty list, although I'd prefer for the rear wheels to also be driven, despite the bang up, GREAT job the engineers did to make that thing a neutral handler, and NOT torque steer the front wheels even with all of that power/torque.

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: Olas
Mk1 Escort RS2000

Escort Cosworth

Sierra RS500

And the unforgettable, laughably insane

Ford RS200.


One could even add the Focus RS500 to that lofty list, although I'd prefer for the rear wheels to also be driven, despite the bang up, GREAT job the engineers did to make that thing a neutral handler, and NOT torque steer the front wheels even with all of that power/torque.

I don't doubt for one second that the Focuswould be a blast to drive but it hasn't achieved the fame, the notoriety, the silverware or the title of 'countries most stolen car' that the others have which elevate them to timelessly desirable, achingly cool and (probably) permanently out of your price range..
It's it's just a fast focus were after, I'll take a mk1 focus RS.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Answer me this, what's the point of having something that looks like an SUV, but has the capability of a car/station wagon? Why the need for looks with nothing to back it up?


There's more to "capability" than being able to go off-road. I find passenger comfort superior in taller vehicles because they are taller. Step-in height is perfect, seating positions are more upright, head room is often better, etc. I like the concept of station wagons, but when it comes down to it, I'm just not comfortable in them. Cars often have higher door sills, which makes resting an elbow there rather uncomfortable. SUVs/CUVs/whatever you want to call them often have lower door sills (because of their increased height) which makes daily life in your vehicle more comfortable over all. We don't have two SUVs/CUVs because we want to look like we traverse the Rubicon Trail. We have two SUVs/CUVs because they're most comfortable for us. It actually took me going through a few sedans to realize that I wasn't uncomfortable with *this* particular car or *that* one...it's that I was uncomfortable in *a car*.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Answer me this, what's the point of having something that looks like an SUV, but has the capability of a car/station wagon? Why the need for looks with nothing to back it up?


There's more to "capability" than being able to go off-road. I find passenger comfort superior in taller vehicles because they are taller. Step-in height is perfect, seating positions are more upright, head room is often better, etc. I like the concept of station wagons, but when it comes down to it, I'm just not comfortable in them. Cars often have higher door sills, which makes resting an elbow there rather uncomfortable. SUVs/CUVs/whatever you want to call them often have lower door sills (because of their increased height) which makes daily life in your vehicle more comfortable over all. We don't have two SUVs/CUVs because we want to look like we traverse the Rubicon Trail. We have two SUVs/CUVs because they're most comfortable for us. It actually took me going through a few sedans to realize that I wasn't uncomfortable with *this* particular car or *that* one...it's that I was uncomfortable in *a car*.


Understandable, though I would argue that minivans can fill this role quite well with more functionality and more cargo room than a crossover, and about the same fuel economy.

And the MDX never came with low range anyway. There has never been an MDX you could get a cheap lift kit for and throw some 33" tires under. Nobody ever made an MDX trail rig. You're not giving anything up buying the current MDX over the first MDX. Likewise with the CRV. They haven't shed any capability since their introduction...the Explorer has.

I'd be fine with the current Explorer, if it were called, say the Edge...and the Everest was in the US wearing the Explorer badge instead. Like what Toyota has been doing for over a decade with the Highlander/4Runner successfully in the US. 4Runner sales have been UP over the last few years (after a major drop during the 2008 crisis). What I hate is to see is nameplates that used to indicate some level of off road capability plastered on what amounts to a FWD on-road only wagon. At least GM retired the Blazer name, though Traverse kind of suggests some sort of all terrain capability. I think "Highway Sow" would be a more appropriate name for it. Ford is shamelessly whoring themselves, trying to make their CAFE numbers by pulling a fast one. Toyota is apparently making their CAFE numbers just fine without ruining their flagship SUVs like the 4Runner and Land Cruiser.

 

[rjundi]

If you are going offroad why not simply buy an old Jeep Cherokee or Ford Explorer for the $3k and be done. Enjoy a nice CUV or whatever suits your fancy the other 99.5% of drive time....

 

[01rangerxl]

There is a finite supply, but next time I get an SUV itch that's what I am doing...minus the driving a CUV part. My Explorer Sport was nice on and off the road.

 

[BowNisPar]

American buyers...and probably most buyers...care about mileage, reliability, and comfort. Off-road capabilities is assuredly at the bottom of 99% of buyers' lists. I don't lament the loss of off-road abilities in modern SUVs. To the contrary, I enjoy the expansion of capabilities in the areas that American buyers actually use their SUVs (ie MPG, long distance comfort, safety features, et cetera).

If you want off road ability, buy used, buy a Wrangler, or buy a 4Runner.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: BowNisPar
American buyers...and probably most buyers...care about mileage, reliability, and comfort. Off-road capabilities is assuredly at the bottom of 99% of buyers' lists. I don't lament the loss of off-road abilities in modern SUVs. To the contrary, I enjoy the expansion of capabilities in the areas that American buyers actually use their SUVs (ie MPG, long distance comfort, safety features, et cetera).

If you want off road ability, buy used, buy a Wrangler, or buy a 4Runner.



Just such a vehicle has been sold in the US for 30 years...the minivan. People just can't get over the perceived stigma. Which I don't get. Is a crossover really cooler? Lots of great minivans were available in the 1990s. The Quest was basically a Maxima van. The first generation Odysseys without sliding doors were great three row vans with excellent reliability.

More choices are always a good thing. The rest of the world has them. Not just the Everest, but the Prado, Pajero, the new Trailblazer, etc. CAFE and the manufacturer's (apparently correct) assumption that we can be duped is why we don't have them.

 

[hpb]

According to my wife, yes, a crossover IS cooler than a minivan! We've owned a minivan, it was practical and very space efficient. Could have all 7 seats occupied and still fit a double pram (stroller?) in the boot. I liked it, it did exactly what we required from a family car... But we traded it on a CX9, which, despite being a bigger vehicle, has less space, is harder to get the kids in and out, and of course uses more fuel... But, to her eyes, it is STYLISH, and that matters more than practicality!

And, after I showed her the Everest pics, as soon as those things launch here, we'll be off to the Ford dealer for a test drive! So eventually, we'll probably end up with a very off-road capable vehicle. Should be real handy for her when attempting to negotiate the treacherous speed bumps outside the daycare center...

 

[Smcatub]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl


Just such a vehicle has been sold in the US for 30 years...the minivan. People just can't get over the perceived stigma. Which I don't get. Is a crossover really cooler? Lots of great minivans were available in the 1990s. The Quest was basically a Maxima van. The first generation Odysseys without sliding doors were great three row vans with excellent reliability.



When I've driven minivans it's felt like I was driving a wobbly battleship down the road while wearing blinders. I had an easier time driving a lifted F150 in the city that I did with the minivan.

Things like the RAV4 or that Fusion-on-Stilts thing that Ford had (Escape, maybe? I forget) have seemed much more 'car-like' and been easier to get around in for me. Maybe in wide-open spaces a minivan would be better, but for city and suburban driving I'd rather have a crossover.

I do like that you can get plywood in the back of some minivans, though.

 

[01rangerxl]

I never encountered that in Quests or first gen Odditys, maybe a second gen LWB beam axle Caravan. Quests had a beam axle in the rear, but were still pretty nimble for a largeish FWD (small compared to a new Explorer or Traverse though). The first gen Oddity had IRS.

The Rav4 and Escape are pretty small, smaller than a minivan, and nimble. They are not among the three row monsters. Their handling is carlike because their size and weight is closer to that of most cars.

Funny thing is, I greatly preferred the driving dynamics of my longitudinal engine, 4WD, leaf sprung solid rear axle Explorer to any oversized FWD car I have driven. Its handling was softer than my coil spring Rangers (Explorer had torsion bars), which also have more leaves in the rear, but it did not handle poorly by any means and had the more balanced feel inherent to RWD biased vehicles. Mine was a two door Sport...very short. A metal bumper off a scrapper's truck fell directly in front of it on the interstate...my choices were the bumpy grass median, or hit the bumper as there were cars all around. I put the Explorer into the median at 70-75 MPH...my head touched the headliner, but I never felt like it was going to roll, and this thing was on 31" tires. The bumpy, slightly sloped grass median didn't phase it a bit. I slowed it, then merged back on the highway without stopping. I suppose my head would not have touched the headliner in a new Explorer or Traverse, but the median probably would have ripped off the front valence at the least, done some suspension damage, and tore the underside all to [censored]. That's not why I bought it, but it was definitely nice to know that it could both handle well and take a beating. Really, the only thing I missed out on was the fuel economy of a 2.0 Ecoboost or whatever. The 4.0L liked gas, but aside from a DPFE sensor never gave me a bit of trouble. Rust (PA truck most of its life) is what eventually put that Explorer out to pasture. I'd probably still have it otherwise.

 

[Hokiefyd]

We've owned two minivans and can say that they certainly offer a different perspective on the "large vehicle" concept than a big SUV does. Ours were somewhat ill-handling ones (Mopar minivans with a beam rear axle), and don't hold a candle to either of our current vehicles in the driving dynamics department. They did achieve decent fuel economy...about on-par with what our MDX delivers (but with regular fuel). The minivans most certainly offered more interior room. The compromise is lower ground clearance (we DO take our vehicles on sand trails around the lake), and poorer driving dynamics.

All that said, the minivans we did own are at least one generation old now and I understand that the newer ones drive a lot better. Something with a long wheelbase and beam axle never will drive as well as something with a shorter wheelbase and a more refined suspension system, but I'm sure they're better than what they were.

I am personally a fan of the minivan concept, and would absolutely entertain owning one in the future. I don't care a ton for the Odyssey, I like the Sienna even less, our previous minivan ownership has soured my wife for Mopar products, and she's conditioned to believe that Kias are cheap. That doesn't give a guy like me a whole lotta choice. We've found that the larger crossovers fit that minivan mold pretty well. Vehicles like the Dodge Durango, the Ford Explorer, the Honda Pilot, the Toyota Highlander, etc. They all offer three rows of seating and similar fuel economy to minivans. I suspect that they all trade interior volume for a better driving environment.

I do concede your point, 01ranger, about Ford using the Explorer name on what is most certainly a car-based crossover. I personally don't care much for names or pay a whole lot of attention to them, so it didn't bother me. I call all of these things SUVs, but some take offense to that and insist that they're CUVs. Okay, whatever floats your boat. I look at the vehicle itself and not what we humans have decided to call it. My name is Jason. Should I really be a George? I don't know. I hope folks look at me for me, though, and not what they think a Jason should be.

Back to the topic, though...the Everest looks really sharp. A certain competitor to the 4Runner and 4-door JKs.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

I do concede your point, 01ranger, about Ford using the Explorer name on what is most certainly a car-based crossover. I personally don't care much for names or pay a whole lot of attention to them, so it didn't bother me. I call all of these things SUVs, but some take offense to that and insist that they're CUVs. Okay, whatever floats your boat. I look at the vehicle itself and not what we humans have decided to call it. My name is Jason. Should I really be a George? I don't know. I hope folks look at me for me, though, and not what they think a Jason should be.

Fair enough.

Ford could slap the Edge or Taurus name on the current Explorer, and it still wouldn't be a vehicle I'd ever consider. Likewise, they could bring the Everest over, call it a Fiesta, and I'd still want one.

But I do hate to see a name I associate with something completely different from the current offering "tarnished."

Think about the response Ford would get if they called the Fiesta a Mustang. Calling a Pinto a Mustang didn't go too well, and people were ready to tar & feather when a FWD Mazda almost got the badge.

 

[antiqueshell]

Good old Ford cheating the home market out of the best
products yet again, it looks like since CEO Mark Fields
took over at the helm the company is going back to its
bad old ways of offering more [censored] in the US saving
the best for "over there".

There IS a market in the US for the Everest and it would sell in significant numbers if marketed right.

My other question is ..where was the Everest designed?
In Europe is my guess. Dearborn hates being one upped
by their German Ford counterparts. If you look through
history everytime Ford brought great FoE products to the US the US manglement did EVERYTHING to kill their chances of being
successful with all manner of sabotage from poor or nonexistent
marketing, to not offering proper service support at the shop.

 

[hpb]

Developed by Ford Australia off the current model Ranger, and I imagine it'll be built in Thailand.

 

[Clevy]

Follow that link and check out the troller

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Follow that link and check out the troller


The Troller is really interesting.

Restyle it, call it a Bronco, put some emissions compliant Ecoboost engines in it, and Ford would have a great Wrangler competitor.

I think Ford in the US is too busy figuring out how many variations of the same boring FWD platforms they can make though, and how many other Mustang parts they can outsource to China. They only have time for cool stuff in other countries.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Olas
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: Olas
Mk1 Escort RS2000

Escort Cosworth

Sierra RS500

And the unforgettable, laughably insane

Ford RS200.


One could even add the Focus RS500 to that lofty list, although I'd prefer for the rear wheels to also be driven, despite the bang up, GREAT job the engineers did to make that thing a neutral handler, and NOT torque steer the front wheels even with all of that power/torque.

I don't doubt for one second that the Focuswould be a blast to drive but it hasn't achieved the fame, the notoriety, the silverware or the title of 'countries most stolen car' that the others have which elevate them to timelessly desirable, achingly cool and (probably) permanently out of your price range..
It's it's just a fast focus were after, I'll take a mk1 focus RS.


Yes, dosen't the Escort Cossie still hold the title of the numero uno 'smash and grab' car in jolly ol' England??
(As in, hooligans steal the car, joy ride the bejeebus out of it, and then use it to smash through the plate glass window of shops and steal everything they can, and RUN.)

 

[hpb]

Ha, and in Oz in the 90's, the Subaru WRX was the ramraiders car of choice - easy to steal, and fast enough to elude the cops!

01rangerXL, keep in mind that people in other countries envy the cars the US gets. For example, there's a lucrative industry here importing Mustangs, Corvettes, F-series, Dodge Ram, etc from the States, converting them to right hand drive, and selling them for big dollars. To you guys, they're just everyday, common vehicles, but here, they're regarded as special, and people are willing to pay a fortune for them. On the other hand, the Everest will just blend in with the plethora of similar vehicles we get; Toyota Prado, Mitsubishi Pajero, Holden Colorado, Isuzu MUX, to name just a few.

I think it's a case of "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.'

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
A crew cab pickup is a terrible compromise. Huge isn't a good thing off road. A lot of people don't want to deal with something that large day in day out, and it might not even fit in their garage.

I know why this is happening in the US...shallow consumers + CAFE. I just wish that wasn't the case. The rest of the world is still getting legitimate off road capable utility vehicles (even if crossovers are sold along side them), and here in the US manufacturers are like "Look at this "truck!" It has a power folding third row! Look, a screen on the dash for phone syncing! No buttons or levers with confusing symbols like '4WD Low,' just choose snow or sunshine! The rear doors don't slide like one of those uncool minivans! It's totally a truck, we promise!"


The majority of US consumers do not want a mid sized rear wheeled drive SUV. Just like a in the past you complained about Ford choosing not to sell a Ranger truck in the U.S.. Ford will offer what sells and will not waste resources and money on what does not.