By on June 9, 2012

When I was a young pup shucking out new Willow Green 1995 Explorer XLTs at MSRP or close to it, the Explorer Sport was the unwanted, low-markup, undesirable-demographic, showroom-poison, short-wheelbase, ugly-duckling, obvious-descendant-of-the-Bronco-II, credit-criminal-friendly… oh, you get the idea, right? Nobody wanted them and we didn’t bother to stock them in any quantity.

Those days are long gone, and so is the two-door SUV; the last short-wheelbase Explorer to darken a dealer’s floorplan left the factory over a decade ago. Now, Explorer “Sport” means six-cylinder Ecoboost.

The Explorer Sport is the only Explorer with a base price over $40,000, but it’s reasonably well-equipped and, as seen below, arrives with all the goodies for under fifty grand. Put aside for the moment the fact that fully-loaded Explorers used to sell for thirty K, and it could almost be considered a value. Your humble author continues, however, to recommend the Flex over the Explorer; it does everything the “SUV” might reasonably be expected to do, offers a better third row, and looks like a design statement instead of a melted soap bar.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

76 Comments on “Explorer Sport Offers Twin-Turbo Ecoboost For Just North of $40K...”


  • avatar
    segfault

    Ford’s website stinks. A “402A package” is four grand, but it doesn’t have a name, like “navigation package” or “rear entertainment package?”

    • 0 avatar
      drylbrg

      A rose by any other name would smell just as expensive.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Ford; taking the opposite approach to that of Volkswagen & Toyota for the United States market, premium pricing every chassis it can churn out, even if the attempted justification to the retail buyer is “[w]ell, ma’am, you will be able to smoke a Subaru Outback off the line with this baby.”

      A two wheeling (as in two wheels on the ground, whilst two wheels in the air, around steep corners) we will go.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      The packages could be names in a more marketing-friendly way, but the website is about the best you’ll see from any automaker – just click on the ‘see the details’ link below any package and it not only lists what comes in the package, but gives you the details about what every option in that package is.

      If you want to see a craptastic website try to spec out a Toyota online, especially if you live in the Southeast and get automatically rerouted to the SE Toyota failfest website.

      • 0 avatar
        Felis Concolor

        The only complaint I have had for the past few years regarding Ford’s website is the lack of fun colors for certain models in their lineup. When you’re offering White and Expensive White along with Grey and Light Grey (okay, silver), that’s 2 full spectral choices the customer is missing out on. I can already envision a boxy cousin to the Explorer in Yellow Blaze with a Tuxedo Black roof cap; I would happily order a loaded version with that paint scheme – and then apply to the DMV for a “short bus” vanity plate.

        Wow, that is a terrible site: radio buttons for unrelated options with no means of combining different offered items equals “we know better than you what’s good for you.”

      • 0 avatar
        segfault

        Yeah, I hate that one, too. Especially since if you’re in Southeast Toyota territory, the cars on dealer lots are all optioned according to Southeast Toyota’s specifications.

  • avatar
    28-cars-later

    If Jack is right and the Flex is really the better value for families, Ford might be wise to drop the price of these Sports out of the stratosphere and aim it at gear-heads like me. 50K for a Ford anything, wow… of course you can option a Focus to almost 30K so at least they are consistent in their pricing lunacy.

    • 0 avatar
      outback_ute

      I think he means the Flex is a better car

      • 0 avatar
        28-cars-later

        It probably is, but its still a family wagon most singles or couples without a brood wouldn’t be interested in purchasing. The Explorer Sport might appeal more to those groups but I think its priced too high.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Jack’s correct IMO. I’ve had both as rentals (the Flex picked out intentionally for a family trip and the Explorer given to me on a non-family trip).

      While my miles and time spent with the rental Explorer weren’t as long as the Flex, for their intended purposes, the Flex is way more comfortable, roomy and has way more utility in terms of real life driving than the Explorer.

      But the Explorer looks cooler, according to soccer moms, with a brighter dash panel, with more shades of lighting, and more buttons and things, so…you know…

      The same mentality relegates station wagons and minivans to also ran status, even though both can be and most often are far more capable and comfortable vehicles for the same ostensible purpose as the cool looking CUVs and SUVs that have far less shoulder, head and leg room, worse ride quality, and overall just suck worse at just about everything.

      This won’t change until automakers can’t move the ‘cool looking’ and overpriced vehicles, because the credit isn’t available.

      • 0 avatar
        Byron Hurd

        Another reason the Flex doesn’t sell: Women hate it.

        Show them an Edge or an Explorer after a Flex and it’s game over.

      • 0 avatar
        geo

        My female boss wanted an Edge until she sat in it. Apparently, some women don’t like having a nose-level dashboard.

        I agreed with her assessment after I sat in one. I preferred sitting in the 2011 Escape.

        Women loved the original Explorer mainly because of the high seating position and resulting visibility. With the Edge, that extra visibility is negated by the high beltline.

  • avatar
    Educator(of teachers)Dan

    For angry NASCAR Dad’s who want to get on the boost after wifey has been dropped off at the prayer meeting.

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    Supposedly the trouble with the Flex is that women absolutely HATE them, as they look like big station wagons. Which of course, is exactly what they are. But jack it up 3-4″ and make it look more butch and off-roady and they eat them up. And since married men are almost universally spineless, it makes the poor thing a lost cause. I too rather like them, having had several as rentals. I have absolutely no use for such a vehicle though.

    • 0 avatar
      Silvy_nonsense

      The Flex is selling well to certain women, particularly those in households with annual incomes over $150K. The Flex is the under-the-radar and therefore snobby choice for the soccer mom who has the maid take the kids to soccer when Mommy has a DAR meeting.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      …….And since married men are almost universally spineless, it makes the poor thing a lost cause…..

      Sorry to hear about that. When it comes to cars and speed, my wife is fine. While I hope she likes what I buy, my car is my choice, just like hers is her choice. She can’t drive a stick but she won’t stop me from buying one. But there is some merit to your statement. I remember an friend being told by his wife that he “couldn’t have the V8 when he bought his Jeep”…and to think I dated her for a month or so first….dodged a bullet there…

    • 0 avatar
      Campisi

      “And since married men are almost universally spineless, it makes the poor thing a lost cause.”

      SOLUTION!

      The wife gets to pick her car, the husband gets to pick his car. If this doesn’t work, the marriage won’t, either.

  • avatar
    PaulVincent

    The EcoBoost engine gets good mpg, so it’s a nice option to have. I just wish that they had it (3.5) for every vehicle offering.

    • 0 avatar
      Educator(of teachers)Dan

      Ecobost 3.5V6 + Fusion = TRUE return of the SHO…

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      The EBs holds a lot of promise, I agree. But it remains to be seen if Ford has overcome the problems that all boosted engines (turbo, bi-turbo and supercharged) have experienced over the past decades.

      People who owned boosted engines have had to contend with premature failures of all kinds in the past and that was just one reason why GM stopped making their supercharged V6s. My dad owned one in a Park Avenue and it was always in the shop for one thing or another, mostly blower-related.

      We won’t know for a couple of years yet how well Ford’s EBs will hold up after the warranty expires and these units hit the used market.

      If you’re planning to lease or buy new and won’t keep this thing past the warranty period, no problem. But if you buy this thing used and out of warranty, what wallet-draining nightmares will await you?

      • 0 avatar
        Educator(of teachers)Dan

        what wallet-draining nightmares will await you?

        Hey come on its not a MB…

        (Sorry forgive the trolling)

      • 0 avatar
        Silvy_nonsense

        “But it remains to be seen if Ford has overcome the problems that all boosted engines (turbo, bi-turbo and supercharged) have experienced over the past decades.”

        Exactly. We have to change our oil more frequently now than ten or twenty years ago due to looser engineering and manufacturing tolerances. Cars need tune ups more frequently than ever because we still haven’t figured out how to get computers to replace distributors and points. You’re lucky if a car even starts on the first try these days!

        You’re totally right to be skeptical about the improvements in boost technology over the last twenty years. There’s almost no evidence that cars in general are more reliable, so obviously turbo-charged engines are probably as bad now as those stellar, world-class GM units from decades past.

        You’d think that Ford would do something smart like run a boosted truck engine under harsh conditions for 100,000 miles and document it all for publicity. That would probably help people get a feel for how much reliability of turbocharged engines has improved.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Hopefully they won’t be like Alfa or Porsche either, or my dad’s supercharged GM V6.

        Fact remains, if I lay down $40K for any vehicle I would like it to be problem-free for at least 100K miles.

        Maybe some people who currently own turbo or supercharged engines could enlighten us with their experiences.

        I remember when the Airesearch Turbos were the best commercial blowers out there, and they had failures, mostly with bearings.

        How have Ford and Honeywell improved on that design? Did they switch to ceramic bearings and do those spin at 100K rpm with a 6-8 pound boost? How do they keep the oil from frying prior to shut-off? Or do they use air-bearings?

        I have questions. $40K is a lot of money to pay for something that the marketing department hails as the greatest thing since toilet paper. But we’ll know how well they hold up after about five years.

      • 0 avatar
        segfault

        LOL, wut? The Explorer has never been known for its mechanical robustness.

        As much as I hate GM, the 3800 has a reputation as a reliable power plant, although the non-supercharged versions had gasket issues.

      • 0 avatar
        dave504

        EB turbos are water cooled – no oil worries.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        I’m paraphrasing SilvyNonsense, but apparently, some believe that the new, improved turbochargers will be relatively problem free, set it and forget it, coking immune, heatsoak resistant, as-good-as-solid-state electrical components in terms of reliability.

        Paint me highly skeptical, especially given the built to a price point vehicles these new fangled turbos are finding themselves being attached to, where only a good and pricey dose of extra equipment could mitigate many of these serious issues, but which can’t be installed due to aforesaid price point limitations.

        But maybe the new and improved unobtanium alloy turbocharger is better than yesterday’s, and immune from the plethora of issues mentioned, even over the long term.

        Or not.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        We had a supercharged Buick in our family. There was no supercharger related problems at all, just a Freon leak that required a recharge every 6 months and was never repaired by the dealer. One of the primary causes of GM supercharger failures is due to the belt tensioner losing control of the belt tension. This usually wipes the bearing out, and will also kill the new SC as well. As for the engine itself, it is a 3800. ‘Nuff said. All engines should be so robust.

      • 0 avatar
        86SN2001

        Silvy:
        “You’d think that Ford would do something smart like run a boosted truck engine under harsh conditions for 100,000 miles and document it all for publicity.”

        You actually believed that? You ACTUALLY believed that it was the very same engine that did all that?

        Bwhahahahahahahahaha! No wonder why Egoboost sells well…

        It took Ford over TEN years to figure out SPARK PLUGS on the boat anchor mod motors…what makes you think this failed company can get turbos and direct injection right.

        We’ve already seen these gas guzzling V6s fail…

        “Paint me highly skeptical, especially given the built to a price point vehicles these new fangled turbos are finding themselves being attached to, where only a good and pricey dose of extra equipment could mitigate many of these serious issues, but which can’t be installed due to aforesaid price point limitations.”

        Plus, it’s a Ford product. You could trust GM or Chrysler…but Ford? The same company that went cheap on the brakes for the “My thing is bigger than your thing” GT500?

        Egoboost motors will not last. Ford doesn’t have the engineering experience to pull off something so complicated.

      • 0 avatar
        Loser

        Looks like someone is back with the same old song, just under a new name.

      • 0 avatar
        WRohrl

        To date I’ve owned 6 turbocharged cars and 1 supercharged one and have not experienced any problems related to the forced induction part of them AT ALL. On the other hand I tend to maintain my vehicles as well. And looking at the list below, none than none of them besides the Buick are considered particularly reliable cars in the general public’s mind.

        93 Audi S4 – sold at 112k
        95.5 Audi S6 Avant – sold at 66k
        90 Volvo 740 Wagon – sold at 145k
        01 Volvo V40 – turned in at 48k (lease)
        06 Saab 9-2X Aero – Sold at 30k
        03 Saab 9-3 – sold at 78k
        00 Buick Regal GS – sold at 85k

        Some were bought new, some were bought used, collectively I owned the above for a total of 17 years (some overlapped). All were fantastic cars that I would buy again. The one thing I would NOT do on any of the above cars would be to buy the normally aspirated version (for the ones where that was an option), the turbo (or supercharger) is what made them enjoyable to drive Seems to me a lot of people know nothing about how turbos work. In most of the cars listed above, the turbo itself could be changed in 3-4 hours or less without a lot of mechanical skills or even a lot of tools. Even the cost for a new turbo is not exorbitant especially if you are at all an enthusiast and understand that the parts counter at the local dealer is not necessarily the best place to buy a replacement part. Some modern cars are much more of a nightmare in which to change the turbo but the same goes for more mundane parts as well (battery in a new BMW 5-series, headlight bulbs! in many new cars, etc.)

        Almost every or actually maybe it is EVERY long haul truck out there is turbocharged. EVERY heavy duty pickup truck sold today that I am aware of with a diesel is a turbo. Many small cars are sold with turbos and you can’t even tell when driving them. Turbo technology is lightyears away from where they were in the late 70′s and even then, the people that actually knew what they were doing (Porsche and Saab) had relatively few failures directly related that to that part of the technology. I’m sure you have a cousin or a brother-in-law that sold Toyota’s that knows different but the facts don’t support it. The manufacturers that had problems are the ones that tried the tech as an add-on without doing the research or putting in the money to beef up the basic engine it was attached to.

        The cost and aggravation to change a timing belt is generally MUCH more than to change a turbo on most cars out there. For the do-it-yourselfer, if you screw up a timing belt you have a serious issue, if you screw up a turbo replacement it is not a particularly big deal to put right (and as long as you can reach it, it is generally difficult to screw up in the first place). Heck, it is attached to the exhaust piper EXTERNALLY to the engine, not complex at all. Read up on it, you’ll see that being frightened of a turbo is basically asinine.

  • avatar
    Ion

    A 4×4 GC Laredo-X is 38,000 so the Explorer sport is sorta competitive. Personally I question why the average person needs the V8 or the Ecoboost over the standard V6′s. How many GCs or Explorers do you see towing heavy loads?

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      I bought my wife a 2012 GC Overland Summit 4X4 V6 and it is plenty powerful, even in High Country.

      One of my sons traded his Pilot for a 2012 All-Black GC SRT-8 4X4 and it is insane! It’s a lot of fun to drive, and handles very well.

      A friend of ours recently retired her Murano and bought a 2012 GC Limited 4X4 with the 5.7 V8 and it’s a hoot to drive. Even though it’s got a class 4 Hitch, she never tows anything.

      There’s a GC for everyone, in any trim, drive-system, engine and transmission combination that offers plenty of git up and go.

      I’m not sure how well the Ford Twin-Turbo will hold up over the years. Judging from past boosted engines, I’m not sure if I would buy one to keep beyond the warranty period. We’ll know in five years how well the Ford EBs will hold up.

  • avatar
    86SN2001

    Ugg…another overpriced and under-delivering Egoboost Ford.

    Now we have a V6 explorer that will drink fuel like a V8. And the towing capacity is still pitiful.

    Ford will never get “it”.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      The only thing an Explorer was used for towing was children. Giving up towing capability for better handling and economy was a good choice considering the use 99% of them see.

    • 0 avatar
      C170guy

      One advantage of a turbocharged engine, as you may have seen from some of their infomercials, is at altitude.

      On a hot day in Denver the difference is night and day, as well as mountain passes, and high-desert areas.

      Two words: Density altitude.
      I live between 3 and 4 thousand feet. It was 108 today.
      the density altitude was somewhere in the neighborhood of 7500Ft+, with 5% humidity to (not) help carry off heat.
      The sand trucks were out because the roads were melting.
      Just try to accelerate normally, and you use much more throttle, and then the AC kicks out because the engine can’t find any power, but for your troubles you don’t really accelerate that much and you get to wait for the AC to kick back on and produce what pathetic cooling it can- since it has no moisture to work with.

      With good engine, and cabin cooling I can see a turbo being just the ticket for me. Unfortunately I hear they have resurrected using timing belts on turbo (interference?) engines in their lineup – This is the bigger deal-breaker for me instead of a modern turbo. I won’t have a fancy $5,000 engine hanging on a $3 belt.

      • 0 avatar
        NulloModo

        The EcoBoost 3.5 V6 and EcoBoost 2.0 I4 both use timing chains.

      • 0 avatar
        Felis Concolor

        Precisely; the forced induction engine’s advantage at altitude isn’t the power gained over normal aspiration but rather the power not lost. As my current elevation is just over 6,000 ft, I’m definitely going to have some sort of power adder on whatever new ride I end up buying.

        And if I run the OP’s text through some analyzing software, I have the sneaking suspicion it’ll come back with an answer starting “Z71″…

      • 0 avatar
        Educator(of teachers)Dan

        My (now former) boss has an Ecobost 2.0 Edge and loves it, she traded a first gen Edge with the V6 and AWD for it. She LOVES the bosted engine at our 6500ft altitude here in Gallup and she’s getting much better fuel economy.

  • avatar
    genuineleather

    The problem I have with the Explorer (and virtually every other late-model Ford) is that they’re cramped inside despite their capacious exterior dimensions. The indents on the doors alone destroy inches of interior width.

    Would easily take a Lambda, GC or Durango over this.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      I don’t get the cramped comments regarding the Explorer. I’m a big guy, and I fit very comfortably in either of the first two rows. The third row isn’t as roomy as th Expedition, but it’s still better than any of the other three row crossovers/SUVs on the market save the Flex.

      The interior door panels are sculpted out on the Explorer, to the point where some of my less-wide customers have noted that the arm-rest is a bit far away. Second row leg room isn’t as expansive as the Flex is, but it’s still far better than the Pilot, Highlander, JGC, or Traverse.

      • 0 avatar
        dtremit

        If you’re tall and broad shouldered, a lot of the newer D3/D4 platform cars can be tight — the B pillars are really bulky, and the furthest back seating positions put the pillars just forward of the shoulder. Anyone who sits forward of that would probably never see an issue, though.

        I don’t find the Explorer to be that bad, though it’s less comfortable than either the Flex or the Edge. (I’ll disagree and say the JGC is roomier for me, as well.) The biggest offender, though, is the Taurus. It’s shameful how much less room it has compared to the (current, outgoing) Fusion.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    Jack,

    I share your love of the Flex. I’m single, have no kids, and have no need for three rows of space, yet I still lust over them.

    That being said, I’ve become a bit gun-shy about recommending them to customers because nothing craps me out more than hearing the almost-inevitable disparaging remarks about the styling that follow me showing it off (especially if a woman happens to be involved in the purchasing decision). I’ve tried playing it off ala Matt Smith with a ‘Station wagons are cool!’ but it just doesn’t work.

    The funny thing is, the Flex sells based on referrals from current owners better than just about any vehicle on the lot. Anyone who has ridden in one, or who has had their mind opened to the prospect by a neighbor or friend who owns one is already halfway sold. Short of Ford starting a campaign based on abducting random people off the street for a test drive or bribing the next celebutante to make the Flex the instrument of her next DUI arrest I don’t know what can be done to get the message out to those not lucky enough to know someone smart enough to have bought a Flex.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      “‘Station wagons are cool!’ ”

      I thought that the public and the manufacturers decided that stationwagons weren’t cool. That’s why they quit making them.

      Don’t misunderstand, I grew up in an age when stationwagons were THE family car, and I have fond memories of my dad’s ’52 Ford wagon, his ’56 Chevy wagon, his ’60 Ford wagon.

      In fact, when I got married and started a family, a stationwagon is what we bought. The ones I loved were my ’72 Olds Custom Cruiser bought new, and my Colony Park and Olds 350 Diesel Wagon, each bought used.

      The Flex is just another stationwagon, incorporating all the best features of modern cars, but IMO it will remain a niche vehicle, never rising to the sales levels of minivan or SUV.

      Maybe you can educate us on what makes the Flex an object of your lust and desire because I can’t understand the Flex at all, since it doesn’t sell well and will never displace the Edge or the Explorer.

      Then again, I have owned several Ford products over the past decades, and no longer choose to buy Ford because other manufacturers more closely match my wants and needs for vehicles.

      • 0 avatar
        NulloModo

        The general public seems to be unimpressed with my personal endeavors to make the station wagon cool again. The reason that they stopped being produced however, at least to my understanding, is a combination of falling out of style due to associations with motherhood and ‘family-vehicles’ and CAFE rules that don’t treat them as kindly as minivans, SUVs or CUVs.

        I like the Flex because I like the styling (especially with the two-tone roof), I like the high quality interior, and I like the quality of the ride (almost as smooth as a Town Car with an air suspension but with decent handling and less body roll). The seats are incredibly comfortable, the road and wind noise is minimal, and the dead pedal placement isn’t as obnoxious as it is in the Taurus, MKS, or MKT.

        The Flex with the EcoBoost is also faster than it has any right to be and is genuinely fun to drive.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        That’s really interesting. I’ve got some friends on active duty in the Air Force who also play in a C&W band on weekends and they were talking with me about the stationwagons I had that I used to haul my musical amplifiers around in when I played in a band in the’60s, ’70s and ’80s.

        My need was driven by family transportation and at the same time a roomy enough wagon to haul all my amps, PA-system, mike-stands, guitar cases, keyboards, etc. to my gigs.

        Nowadays, these band guys drive a 4dr pick’m up with a campershell on them. It seems to satisfy all their needs for flexible family transportation (no pun intended) and the need to haul band gear.

        I wonder why more musicians haven’t seen the merits of the Flex.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        I wonder why more musicians haven’t seen the merits of the Flex.

        Probably the price…

      • 0 avatar
        Richard Chen

        My parents had the GM B-body station wagons during my childhood, I was a growing teenager riding squished in the front center, between the driver and front passenger, to get the advertised 8 passenger capacity. The groceries/luggage rode in the footwell where the shallow 3rd row’s passenger legs also resided.

        So when the kids arrived I briefly thought of getting a wagon, but ended up with couple a minivan. Power sliding doors are great for the scoop & go.

      • 0 avatar
        jdowmiller

        Jack White drives a Flex

    • 0 avatar
      Robstar

      I thought the flex looked “clean” on the outside (at least a few years ago when I saw it at the autoshow) and when my wife & I were looking for a 3 row vehicle, I asked her to take a look at it.

      Soon as I showed it to her on the website, she said “no”. I don’t really care what cars look like on the outside too much (I’ve thought about painting my STi pink before), but my wife won’t drive anything that looks like a “box”

      No Flex
      No XB
      No Soul
      No Cube ..

      You get the picture.

      My next push was to get a minivan with 3 rows as they tend to be more practical than cuv’s suv’s. Outside of the Mazda5, my wife wouldn’t consider any other minivan and when she test drove a Sorento, that is what she wanted. I’m not a fan of it at all, but I guess I can see why she likes it since it’s easy for her to see over small cars (she’s about 5’2″). To me, I always have to remind myself to take corners slower than I normally would. I mentioned this to her as well & mentioned the roll-over risk, but she’s a pretty convservative/slow driver anyhow.

      • 0 avatar
        zamoti

        I was in the same boat with my wife. She didn’t want a minivan (but did also drive a Mazda5). After the Mazda5 3rd row was judged to be near useless, I tried other wacky non-minivan choices. I was even crazy enough to the point where I had pen in hand to sign on a used R-class. They wouldn’t negotiate so I walked.
        After test driving what seemed like every family hauler available, I said “F@#k it, let’s get a CX9.” Our Volvo broke on the way to go look at the BigMadza, so we didn’t have much of a choice unless we wanted to ride home in a tow truck.
        I was pushing for the Flex, but my wife didn’t care for the interior and at the time, the used selection was pretty thin. I like station wagons and enjoy that the Flex doesn’t look like yet another RX clone. The Mazda has turned out well, but it certainly doesn’t stand out in a crowd.
        Maybe I can talk her into one in 2019….

      • 0 avatar
        Chocolatedeath

        @zamoti.. This kinda happened to be as well. I have talked about this under my other TTAC name Dragophire. I really wanted the FLEX and so did my wife however they (FORD) would not budge on the price given that it was rather new then. We ended up driving alot of CUV’s however chose the CX9. Its very nice and in my mind and IMO near the best of the three row CUV’s I would have much preferred the FLEX. I have only had one issue with the CX9 (reported to True Delta) rear window motor. Other than that its been trouble free. I love the ride and it is very elegant in its looks however not distinctive. Maybe I will get a Flex in Five more years when its on a new platform and diesels available.

  • avatar
    mr_muttonchops

    What’s a Lincoln?

  • avatar
    red60r

    The Flex still looks like the box the Scion xB came in.

  • avatar
    mccall52

    Going back to Mr. Baruth’s comments about the two door, would that explain why Ford facelifted it what appears to be twice, while the four doors stayed somewhat consistent?

    I may be counting the “sport premium” (of sorts) as one of those facelift. I seem to remember a time I wasn’t aware the two door had the Eddie Bauer-esque fender flares, but in a grey color. May have come with a nicer interior as well, but also as Mr. Baruth commented, we’re well past ten years here.

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    I would never purchase a vehicle like this, unless the price was less than half.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    The Ford websites sucks like a Hoover. Unless you use Internet Explorer. Methinks ford has drank the Redmond kool-aid. Also, no V-6 Mustang convertible and performance package. Idiots.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Convertible Mustang bodies are flimsy by nature so the performance pack would be a waste. Whatever the suspension won’t give up, the body will. Unless you also went with a full rollcage, the constant creaking would drive you bananas.

  • avatar
    MarkReed

    On June 1, General Motors announced a plan to reduce its pension liability by an expected 26 Billion dollars. The GM plan provides select U.S. salaried retirees a lump- sum payment offer and other retirees with a continued monthly pension payment. This will be a complex decision-making process and the advice of a qualified financial advisor is suggested. For a free white paper and information on the General Motors (NYSE:GM) Pension Buyout visit http://www.gmpensionbuyout.net The decision deadline has been set for July 20, 2012.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Right, right and right. Turbo engines have a few more parts that can fail and run a bit hotter. Give me a simple V8 any day. Zero chance of that in a Taurus based Explorer, but I’d get the Egoboost because it’s over 5,000 lbs wet.

    @86SN2001, I’m not aware of a turbo’d engine that was specifically problematic for Ford. The Egoboost in the F-150 does beat the V8′s MPG, although when both are loaded down and driven hard the V8 gets better MPG because it isn’t working as hard.

    The point of the Egoboost is to give the heavy Explorer the V8 power it needs and that doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll be a pig at the pump. If you drive both a normal 3.5 and Egoboost Explorers fully loaded and up a grade, the 3.5 will get worked harder and burn more fuel to keep up.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    Montero SPORT: Not a Montero
    Outlander SPORT: Not an Outlander
    SX4 SPORT: 5-door
    OLD Explorer SPORT: 2-door
    Edge/Explorer SPORT: Ecoboost

    The use of SPORT continues to be…erratic.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India