I just assumed that once ford went with the transverse engine in 2011 that they would continue, but good for Ford for going back to the longitudinal layout in 2020.My mistake - I thought OP was looking at current gen explorers with a longitudinal engine.
The sideways ones ... yeah, no good. Transverse , V6 is always a hard NO for me.
Out of that list ,only the Durango or 21 Exploder are what I'd chose.
Of that list, I'd do the Durango. If you can swing a Tahoe, that would be the holy grail.
JMHO. The 3 row CUV types seem to be nothing but trade off's. If it were me, and I needed to tow and haul people, I think I would either go full size truck based - Tahoe, Armada, Sequoia - even if I had to go older.
You will get mega miles for $35K Tahoes.....Good point. I’ll have to look into them. Tahoes, Armadas, Expeditions. I know the full size trucks tend to last much longer. Just a matter of finding one that’s in good shape for $35k or less. Now that I think about it the three row crossovers aren’t that much more efficient than the full sizes so it’s a good alternative.
Not even close.....I'd want to see their power to weight ratio, Not exactly scientific but it could be a decent indicator along with cylinders. I'd lean more towards the 6 cylinders for longevity but the ration would help figure that out.
I would logically assume the OEM's take the weight into consideration as standard practice to determine what is needed or not for the performance/longevity requirements of buyers so there is science behind the ratio's. A four cylinder in an SUV is for fuel savings and ok lifespan. Put a six cylinder & it should last a bit longer but won't get the fuel savings. Just a general example. Do you think the same weight vehicle lasts longer with a 4 cylinder over a 6 cylinders? Just curious.Not even close.....
I don't think the difference is such the average consumer cares. Too many factors to consider such a theory.I would logically assume the OEM's take the weight into consideration as standard practice to determine what is needed or not for the performance/longevity requirements of buyers so there is science behind the ratio's. A four cylinder in an SUV is for fuel savings and ok lifespan. Put a six cylinder & it should last a bit longer but won't get the fuel savings. Just a general example. Do you think the same weight vehicle lasts longer with a 4 cylinder over a 6 cylinders? Just curious.
Good point. I’ll have to look into them. Tahoes, Armadas, Expeditions. I know the full size trucks tend to last much longer. Just a matter of finding one that’s in good shape for $35k or less. Now that I think about it the three row crossovers aren’t that much more efficient than the full sizes so it’s a good alternative.
Problem with the Tahoe is the third row is horrible for the size of the vehicle. And if you do use it then the rear shortage suffers tremendously. Towing is where the Tahoe would shine IMO.There are 34 Tahoe's within 200 miles of central Iowa between $30k and $35k...most with under 100k miles, and some as low as 40k miles.
With that budget, you should have no trouble finding a Tahoe in great shape...at least around here.