4.6 4V DOHC S/C, in another Ford...

[Marauder2005]

Well looks like the DOHC still lives, if Ford make this vehicle, just thought

the 3V was taking over...

http://www.svt.ford.com/vehicleSportTrac.asp

[DEFYANT]

Nice.

And DefyantWife is lookin for a new car.....:hmmm:

[STLR FN]

Ford is making that vehicle. It's called the Adrenaline. Has the old 390hp Lightning/Cobra motor in it.

[Lidio]

Yes this vehicle is suppose to come out this spring for real.

As much as I think Ford is late in the game some times with performance and innovation, this one could lead to some thing good... more then just a two or three seat-er like the lightnings, smaller and more agile then the lightnings and all-wheel-drive. Could be the beginning of a pretty cool and muscular SUV type vehicle if they don't price them selves out of pretty cool area.

It has 6-speed auto trans and the Eaton blown 4.6L Cobra motor. I see the potential with just bolt-ons and tuning for this thing to run mid to low 12's in the 1/4 mile with passengers in the rain!!!

[bigslim]

Something to compete with the SRT-8 Jeep (420hp) and the Trailblazer SS (390hp).

[LVMarauder]

Ford has ****ed themselves. Too little too late. Sure its impressive, but when compared to other American or European car companies they are at the wanting end of the bell curve. I mean really , they are finally doing stuff other companies have been doing for awhile. and recycling the same engines over and over?? wheres the innovation? Chrysler, Dodge, BMW, Audi , thats where. jesus even GM has a new 5.3 in the impy. Im done ranting. flame away.

[AzMarauder]

Ford has ****ed themselves. Too little too late. Sure its impressive, but when compared to other American or European car companies they are at the wanting end of the bell curve. I mean really , they are finally doing stuff other companies have been doing for awhile. and recycling the same engines over and over?? wheres the innovation? Chrysler, Dodge, BMW, Audi , thats where. ***** even GM has a new 5.3 in the impy. Im done ranting. flame away.

:lol:

Yeah... innovation... Chrysler = butt ugly.... GM = Pushrod (they were using pushrods in WWI fighter engines) and a lot of plastic cladding to look like hood scoops and flairs... Ford has been in the lead in technologically superior engines since the mid 90's.

All a matter of taste I am sure... but of your list... only manufacturer there that would interest me is the BMW.

[rayjay]

I didn't read all the specs, so I hope they did some suspension work. Wasn't the original Sport Trac notorious for roll over crashes?

[RR|Suki]

If the price is right, I know I'd be very interested ;)

[twolow]

I didn't read all the specs, so I hope they did some suspension work. Wasn't the original Sport Trac notorious for roll over crashes?

I think SVT has always been known for building a top notch suspension. Other things may not be far from the regular series vehicle but the suspension has always been great.

[Marauder2005]

Ford has ****ed themselves. Too little too late. Sure its impressive, but when compared to other American or European car companies they are at the wanting end of the bell curve. I mean really , they are finally doing stuff other companies have been doing for awhile. and recycling the same engines over and over?? wheres the innovation? Chrysler, Dodge, BMW, Audi , thats where. ***** even GM has a new 5.3 in the impy. Im done ranting. flame away.

I don't know If I could agree with that, you could say the same about the

SVT Mustang compared to Euro cars but, there still sweped of the shelves.

[WILDO]

There are a few things that are not clear about the SVT ST. There has been no final word on the engine. Remember the Sport Trac Adrenalin of past had a 4.0 but its not to say that this one will. Even with the update T251 Chassis being able to craddle a 4.6 does not exactly mean that the SVT version wont carry some sort of a 3V as well. The New Sport Trac starts production this Ferburary.

Ive had my eye on this SVT ST ever since it first was shown in white. This was brought out to highlight the updated Explorers front end and get some consumer input..

If the price does not kill it, I may look at replacing my 04 Cobra with one (kids). If the price its "out of this world" I will get a pimped out Mariner for the wife and keep our MM for myself.:lovies2:

[fast Ed]

The new generation Sport Trac is supposed to be getting IRS, similar to what's in the current 4-door Explorers.


cheers
Ed N.

[LVMarauder]

:lol:

Yeah... innovation... Chrysler = butt ugly.... GM = Pushrod (they were using pushrods in WWI fighter engines) and a lot of plastic cladding to look like hood scoops and flairs... Ford has been in the lead in technologically superior engines since the mid 90's.

All a matter of taste I am sure... but of your list... only manufacturer there that would interest me is the BMW.


SO I guess their great leadership is why their stocks are worth $8 a share And those butt ugly chryslers are worth $50 a share. Wait, what about those ancient pushrod motors GM makes? well, even WITH the fact GM is having its blood sucked out of it by all its pensions and massive size they are worth $18 a share. I dont know about you Az, but chrysler and gm look like better investments to me, but what do I know. :nono:

[Tom Kuznicki]

:lol: What is this talk about Fords superior technology ? Have many of you not noticed that an awful lot of Marauders with relatively low miles are billowing smoke out of the tailpipes upon start up ? Do you know that Ford feels that burning 1.5 quarts of oil every 1000 miles is, according to them, normal in the Marauders ! Not to start anything but, the pushrod V6 in my old 1992 Ranger took me to 237,000 miles without ever burning 1.5 quarts in 5000 miles. My old Crown Vic, 1989, never used oil at that scary of a rate, another pushrod motor. We have to ask this, why in the world would anyone think that this , so called, new technology is superior to what has been proven for 100 years. I will hold my opinions on these engines until I see the same longevity as the trusty old push rod engines.

[Warpath]

...Wasn't the original Sport Trac notorious for roll over crashes?

No, where did you hear that? Are you mistaking the Explorer media hype for the Sportrac? There is nothing wrong with the Explorer or Sportrac.


SO I guess their great leadership is why their stocks are worth $8 a share And those butt ugly chryslers are worth $50 a share. Wait, what about those ancient pushrod motors GM makes? well, even WITH the fact GM is having its blood sucked out of it by all its pensions and massive size they are worth $18 a share. I dont know about you Az, but chrysler and gm look like better investments to me, but what do I know.

Absolute share cost is not a good means of comparing companies. Change in share cost is useful. Just because stock price of one company is higher than another company doesn't mean the high cost company is better at business. Look at the tech stock fad a few years back. Everyone bought into the hype and share costs skyrocketed only to have the company go out of business shortly after. Also, if two companies have the same share price and one decides to split, does it suddenly become a worse company?

[LVMarauder]

Absolute share cost is not a good means of comparing companies. Change in share cost is useful. Just because stock price of one company is higher than another company doesn't mean the high cost company is better at business. Look at the tech stock fad a few years back. Everyone bought into the hype and share costs skyrocketed only to have the company go out of business shortly after. Also, if two companies have the same share price and one decides to split, does it suddenly become a worse company?

Well , I didnt want to say this earlier but since your brought it up ill have explain. 2 years ago F was selling at 15 now 8. Two years ago DCX 38 now 52. There isnt any comparison to tech stocks, you want to compare tech stocks who are mere infants to the megaliths that are domestic car companies? I dont see it. And yes the share cost DOES matter. Ford has been declining , DCX rising. why? ford's not making anything new and exciting. Other car companies are. If you dont beleive me go look up the charts.

[David Morton]

Oil burning hasn't got anything to do with pushrods.

Our 32V DOHC engine is currently the highest high-performance expression of 4-stroke internal combustion piston engine design, not counting forced induction systems which are not actually part of the engine design itself. That there have been some problems with valve guides or seals is non-sequiter, and the "pushrod engine" talk is a false assumtion argument. Answering it is only worth the space it takes to explain to those that don't already have staked out opinions why it's not germane to the discussion. Hopefully they can see that perhaps somebody has mixed apples and oranges here.

Ford is just doing what's wise, considering the current state-of-affairs in the petroleum supply. Hotrod cars and SUVs are gonna be a shrinking market in the long term so why spend money developing newer high-performance engines when we already have the best one available? Duh!

My Marauder hasn't burned a half quart in 18,000 miles. Perhaps it's because I got the break-in oil out at 1000 miles, changed it again at 2500, and have done a filter and change at 5K, 10K, & 15K while doing just an oil change every 2500 in between. Each time I check to see if it's consuming oil, not noticeable, right at the top line.

So maybe somebody isn't servicing theirs well, or maybe Ford fixed the guides for 2004.

Pushrod engines are dinosaurs. So there!

[LVMarauder]

Are you reading what you are writing down? 32V DOHC the PEAK!?!?!? Have you heard of a companies like Ferrari,Maserati, or BMW. In terms of hp per liter they blow ours out of the water. I dont give a hoot about engine design or which is better or older or newer or whatever, have you been reading the thread? This is about which companies are doing what it takes to capture the imagination and more importantly pocketbooks of consumers. Not about which engines they are doing it with. Thats why I cited financial progress over time to prove my point. its simple, companies that are making the grade have rising stocks, companies that aren't have falling stocks. GO LOOK AT THE CHARTS.

And how can say hi-performance will be a shrinking market. The successful hi-po models attract people to the base models which is where the companies make their bread and butter from.lol god we dont have the most advance engine design.

As far as oil goes you are smoking crack if you think this country will be off petroleum in the next 25 years. We are just going to get our crude from other sources like the 200 year supply from coal and shale, in this country alone. Does that clear thing up for you?

[MM03MOK]

LVMarauder: :pill: Time to get off your :soap:. Let's have a conversation, not an argument.

[David Morton]

I'm talking about design, boy, not style or stocks.

Obviously you aren't open to new information, since you already know everything. But...

On the off-hand idea that you will read new stuff (more likely that others here will want to know about other sources of information concerning the petroleum situation and why it's $60 a barrel) here's an article (http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=3832) that discusses it quite well, including analysis from one Matt Simmons, an oil industry banker for twenty years, that says the world is in an energy crisis, something the mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

I'm truly sorry that your young life isn't going to be like mine was, but hey, that's life.

The times, they are a changin'. - Zimmerman

[David Morton]

LVMarauder: :pill: Time to get off your :soap:. Let's have a conversation, not an argument.Maybe he thinks we're gonna run out of e-paper.

[TripleTransAm]

Pushrod engines are dinosaurs. So there!

I'm not convinced. High tech should normally equate to high efficiency (making the most out of what you have). While this may be the case once the 4.6 liters start inhaling at a high rate of speed, I can't think of any other reason for why these motors guzzle so badly at idle than that the valvetrain is its own undoing. While 4 cylinder motors have to operate 16 valves and 2 camshafts, an 8 cylinder motor has to operate twice as many, with twice as much hardware to go with it (sprockets, chains, etc.). Also, the valves might be bigger and heavier to accomodate the larger cylinders (the 4.6 equates to 2 banks of 2.3 liter 4 cylinders, which is rather fat for a four).

I can think of no other reason why a small-ish 4.6l engine guzzles so incredibly much more at idle than a fatter "old-tech" 5.0l Tuned Port Injected pushrod engine (with 'batch fire' injection, on top of it!) AND a ~350 hp 5.7l aluminum V8 with huge ports and heads as well.

And so far nothing is indicating these motors can sustain greater power production before breakage than the GM pushrod V8s. From what I've read on this board so far, quite the contrary...

[Eric91Z]

Yeah, I don't get the whole OHC vs. OHV comparison. They each have their place. The OHV setup has served Chevy and Dodge quite nicely and looks like it will continue to do so. Especially with GM experimenting with variable valve timing in a pushrod motor. Plus you have the displacement-on-demand push rod motors from GM and Chrysler. And GM's pushrod motors can make the same if not more HP with more torque and get better gas mileage than anything Ford offers. I mean look at the lowly C5 Corvette with a pushrod LS1 motor. Real world results show it can get 28-30 mpg on the highway with the 6-speed. The previous Impala SS (better comparison to the Marauder) with it's pushrod V8 and automatic tranny gets about the same or better gas mileage than the Marauder.

Do I think the motor in the Marauder is a good motor? Yes, absolutely. I just think the 4-valve DOHC design is lacking the low end torque our cars need to make it a better vehicle. Thus, the excellent response to supercharging. I would not trade my car and I love how well it runs and how smooth the motor is. And I can't wait for the day that there is a Trilogy S/C sitting on top of that motor. But the best motor out there? Definitely not in my opinion. To each his own..

Oh yeah, back to the original post - I like the vehicle and would take one of them over the Trailblazer SS - personally.

[Mike Poore]

Well looks like the DOHC still lives, if Ford make this vehicle, just thought

the 3V was taking over...

http://www.svt.ford.com/vehicleSportTrac.asp

I went straight to the Powertrain tab. Interesting vehicle.
So that's what they're gonna do with the leftover motors targeted for the Marauders, and Aviators. Thing is, it begs the question; since they're blown motors, will they be using the same connecting rods as the Marauders and Avaitors? Or, is this a leftover from the Cobra project? I can't believe they'd build a bunch of new (read expensive) engines with the 3 valve ones in production. Anyone want to guess? :dunno:

[Eric91Z]

Speaking of which, I wonder what they are going to do with all those leftover "Marauder" rear ends that someone else saw at a work. If they have the 3.55 gears in them already, which car would use them? I didn't think the P71 or P73 cars got the 3.55 gears stock.

[Marauder2005]

SO I guess their great leadership is why their stocks are worth $8 a share And those butt ugly chryslers are worth $50 a share. Wait, what about those ancient pushrod motors GM makes? well, even WITH the fact GM is having its blood sucked out of it by all its pensions and massive size they are worth $18 a share. I dont know about you Az, but chrysler and gm look like better investments to me, but what do I know. :nono:

You would be VERY surprised how much the pensions (retirement) is

draining Ford and GM and not there vehicles motors...:rolleyes:

[Marauder2005]

:lol: What is this talk about Fords superior technology ? Have many of you not noticed that an awful lot of Marauders with relatively low miles are billowing smoke out of the tailpipes upon start up ? Do you know that Ford feels that burning 1.5 quarts of oil every 1000 miles is, according to them, normal in the Marauders ! Not to start anything but, the pushrod V6 in my old 1992 Ranger took me to 237,000 miles without ever burning 1.5 quarts in 5000 miles. My old Crown Vic, 1989, never used oil at that scary of a rate, another pushrod motor. We have to ask this, why in the world would anyone think that this , so called, new technology is superior to what has been proven for 100 years. I will hold my opinions on these engines until I see the same longevity as the trusty old push rod engines.

Maybe the DOHC, but my 4.6 96' Town car went to 192,000 then sold to a

limo Co. out in Ohio, and they drove it back after they flew the guy up to

Boston (LOL true story) And my 4.6 Vic went to 166,000mi with nothing

but oil changes. Just wondering about the 3v V8??

[Rider90]

Speaking of which, I wonder what they are going to do with all those leftover "Marauder" rear ends that someone else saw at a work. If they have the 3.55 gears in them already, which car would use them? I didn't think the P71 or P73 cars got the 3.55 gears stock.
They did. 1998+ IIRC. I know my 99 had 3.55s and my 96 had a high 2 or low 3 series ratio - was godlike on the highway.

[LVMarauder]

I'm talking about design, boy, not style or stocks.

Obviously you aren't open to new information, since you already know everything. But...

On the off-hand idea that you will read new stuff (more likely that others here will want to know about other sources of information concerning the petroleum situation and why it's $60 a barrel) here's an article (http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=3832) that discusses it quite well, including analysis from one Matt Simmons, an oil industry banker for twenty years, that says the world is in an energy crisis, something the mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

I'm truly sorry that your young life isn't going to be like mine was, but hey, that's life.

The times, they are a changin'. - Zimmerman

I just want everyone to know I am twenty years old, I am a third year chemical engineer student at UCSB and I have a 3.7 GPA. My concentration is in alternative energy including high effeciency solar cells and infinetly reproducable algal hydrogen production. Do i know everything? No thats why I am in school. Do I know more than Mr. Morton. Absolutely. Im done with this thread now.

[SergntMac]

Man-oh-man...Freaking car's still on the design table, WTF?

Guess they picked the right name for it...Adrenaline! Sure is flowing here.

[SergntMac]

Pushrod engines are dinosaurs. So there! Rut-row...Second time today I agree with you, do I sense an emerging trend?

[Tom Kuznicki]

Oil burning hasn't got anything to do with pushrods.

Our 32V DOHC engine is currently the highest high-performance expression of 4-stroke internal combustion piston engine design, not counting forced induction systems which are not actually part of the engine design itself. That there have been some problems with valve guides or seals is non-sequiter, and the "pushrod engine" talk is a false assumtion argument. Answering it is only worth the space it takes to explain to those that don't already have staked out opinions why it's not germane to the discussion. Hopefully they can see that perhaps somebody has mixed apples and oranges here.

Ford is just doing what's wise, considering the current state-of-affairs in the petroleum supply. Hotrod cars and SUVs are gonna be a shrinking market in the long term so why spend money developing newer high-performance engines when we already have the best one available? Duh!

My Marauder hasn't burned a half quart in 18,000 miles. Perhaps it's because I got the break-in oil out at 1000 miles, changed it again at 2500, and have done a filter and change at 5K, 10K, & 15K while doing just an oil change every 2500 in between. Each time I check to see if it's consuming oil, not noticeable, right at the top line.

So maybe somebody isn't servicing theirs well, or maybe Ford fixed the guides for 2004.

Pushrod engines are dinosaurs. So there!
Maybe someone is not up to date on the smoking start ups of quite a few Marauders and, I might add more than a couple Mach 1's. so until you have the facts, don't accuse anyone of not maintaining their cars. If it weren't for dinosaurs, you would still be riding a horse, think about it.

[Tallboy]

...those that don't already have staked out opinions why it's not germane to the discussion...

[Sheriff Buford T. Justice]

"The God-danged Germans ain't got nothing to do with it!

[David Morton]

[Sheriff Buford T. Justice]

"The God-danged Germans ain't got nothing to do with it!That's what I said! :lol:
You too funny Tallboy. That's why I like you. :lol:

And NO, LVMarauder. I know more than you do cause I'm 47 and you're 20, little boy. Plus I've been trained by the factories in automotive technology and since we're talking about cars and not plastics that makes me the expert here. Go start a thread on the DuPont web site. Then you can talk from a standpoint of at least some expertise. In this arena you have none.

[AzMarauder]

SO I guess their great leadership is why their stocks are worth $8 a share And those butt ugly chryslers are worth $50 a share. Wait, what about those ancient pushrod motors GM makes? well, even WITH the fact GM is having its blood sucked out of it by all its pensions and massive size they are worth $18 a share. I dont know about you Az, but chrysler and gm look like better investments to me, but what do I know. :nono:

We talking cars or are we talking stocks?

[AzMarauder]

Are you reading what you are writing down? 32V DOHC the PEAK!?!?!? Have you heard of a companies like Ferrari,Maserati, or BMW. In terms of hp per liter they blow ours out of the water. I dont give a hoot about engine design or which is better or older or newer or whatever, have you been reading the thread? This is about which companies are doing what it takes to capture the imagination and more importantly pocketbooks of consumers. Not about which engines they are doing it with. Thats why I cited financial progress over time to prove my point. its simple, companies that are making the grade have rising stocks, companies that aren't have falling stocks. GO LOOK AT THE CHARTS.

And how can say hi-performance will be a shrinking market. The successful hi-po models attract people to the base models which is where the companies make their bread and butter from.lol god we dont have the most advance engine design.

As far as oil goes you are smoking crack if you think this country will be off petroleum in the next 25 years. We are just going to get our crude from other sources like the 200 year supply from coal and shale, in this country alone. Does that clear thing up for you?


I go with what I like... style.. performance.. etc. Don't look at the company's stock value. I wouldn't own a Ferrari if you gave it to me... unless of course I could sell it. I COULD own a Corvette and couldn't be interested less.

OTOH if you pick your cars based upon your analysis of company, stocks etc... :bows:

But of course it then beg's the question.... why you driving a Mercury?

As the old saying goes... "Doctor, heal thyself!"

:D

[AzMarauder]

Do I know more than Mr. Morton. Absolutely. Im done with this thread now.

Any person with an ego so large they would make a statement like this about someone... especially someone they don't even know.....

You have a LOT to learn in life... chemical field or otherwise...

[Rider90]

That's what I said! :lol:
You too funny Tallboy. That's why I like you. :lol:

And NO, LVMarauder. I know more than you do cause I'm 47 and you're 20, little boy. Plus I've been trained by the factories in automotive technology and since we're talking about cars and not plastics that makes me the expert here. Go start a thread on the DuPont web site. Then you can talk from a standpoint of at least some expertise. In this arena you have none.
Alright alright alright...

How old you have to be before you earn respect around here?

[AzMarauder]

Alright alright alright...

How old you have to be before you earn respect around here?

Rider,

Respect is "earned" as much by how someone presents a position as it is the position they present. Age cuts both ways you know. On one end there is the young whipper snapper and the other end is the senile old fool! Be thankful you and LV are closer to the former and not the latter ! :D

[David Morton]

... and the other end is the senile old fool! Be thankful you and LV are closer to the former and not the latter ! :DLet me quote someone I know YOU respect on this idea.


Any person with an ego so large they would make a statement like this about someone... especially someone they don't even know.....

You have a LOT to learn in life...

Go have another drink, bud. :pimp:

Who's senile?

[AzMarauder]

Let me quote someone I know YOU respect on this idea.



Go have another drink, bud. :pimp:

Who's senile?

ME !:rolleyes:

[SergntMac]

And NO, LVMarauder. I know more than you do cause I'm 47 and you're 20, little boy. Thanks, David, you solve what has been a riddle for me here. It's true, age has nothing to do with maturity.

[texascorvette]

I didn't read all the specs, so I hope they did some suspension work. Wasn't the original Sport Trac notorious for roll over crashes?Any vehicle can roll over when the tires that you run 27 pounds of air in blow out. Firestone got a bad rap on that deal. Ford was telling people to drive with underinflated tires, so they'd ride better. When you run a tire with 20% less air than it should have in it, it will overheat and fail. Amazingly enough, people who don't know how to drive after a blowout, have a knack for rolling them over.

[metroplex]

the Exploder Sport Trac is more prone to rollovers than the Exploder.

[Marauder2005]

Bottom line, the truck is sharp looking, and it is is quick :)

Like Lido said, he can make some improvements!:D

[SergntMac]

the Exploder Sport Trac is more prone to rollovers than the Exploder. Got some data on this, Charlie? Something we can peek at?

[TripleTransAm]

Firestone got a bad rap on that deal. Ford was telling people to drive with underinflated tires, so they'd ride better. When you run a tire with 20% less air than it should have in it, it will overheat and fail.


Someone please tell that to Ford dealers telling me to address the accelerated center wear on my Marauder's rear tires by underinflating.

Yep, Firestone got a bad rap on that deal indeed. Tons of SLP Firehawks running around with tires blowing out, heck tons of regular F-cars experiencing blowouts on Firestone tires too... um, wait... NOT!

It shows just how money-driven our existence is. After being hung out to dry like this, you'd think suppliers would hold firm on quality standards when trying to get squeezed by Ford, but you still see companies like Autometer putting out cheapened stuff and dirtying their name. If it wasn't for this site and all the information floating about, I'd have taken one look at the MM's oil pressure gage and proclaimed Autometer to be the Lada of gages!

I wonder if there is a new breed of supply contracts that explicitly releases the supplier of all liability when Ford resorts to nickel-and-diming... although I'd imagine they'd simply choose a supplier that did not include such a clause. Money talks, I guess...

Of course, I'm sure Ford isn't the only manufacturer to apply such cost pressures... (but a simple search of safety recalls seems to show a slight bias towards the blue oval... as they say, if the rollovers and explosions fit, ...)

[TripleTransAm]

Got some data on this, Charlie? Something we can peek at?

The first three hits on a google search for "Sport Trac Rollovers". I won't bother to list the rest of the hits.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/ford_sporttrac.html

http://www.carpages.ca/go/conceptcars/2005_ford_explorer_sport_trac_ concept.aspx

http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/2007/ford/est/page1.html


But apparently rollovers are not a big concern to the Ford customer base, so no biggie:

"Also helping the new Sport Trac should be loyal customer base. Despite horrible press reports about the previous generation receiving the government’s lowest safety rollover rating, the Sport Trac scored very well in customer satisfaction ratings. Ford has addressed those rollover concerns with a complete offering of advanced safety equipment, including Advance Trac with Roll Stability Control and side-curtain air bags."

:lol:

[metroplex]

Thanks TripleTransAm for posting the links. I read about it awhile back around when the SportTrac first debuted on the market (a few years ago).

[texascorvette]

The first three hits on a google search for "Sport Trac Rollovers". I won't bother to list the rest of the hits.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/ford_sporttrac.html

http://www.carpages.ca/go/conceptcars/2005_ford_explorer_sport_trac_ concept.aspx

http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/2007/ford/est/page1.html


But apparently rollovers are not a big concern to the Ford customer base, so no biggie:

"Also helping the new Sport Trac should be loyal customer base. Despite horrible press reports about the previous generation receiving the government’s lowest safety rollover rating, the Sport Trac scored very well in customer satisfaction ratings. Ford has addressed those rollover concerns with a complete offering of advanced safety equipment, including Advance Trac with Roll Stability Control and side-curtain air bags."



Just goes to show that:

A) If you don't know how to drive, you shouldn't buy a tall vehicle.

B) If you can control the press--which Ford does a terrible job of--you can avoid getting a lot of bad press. The old Blazer had a worse record of rollovers after tire failure than the Explorer, but I only saw that in the newspaper about twice. GM does a far better job of PR than Ford. If GM made the CV, police departments would be praising them about the car instead of whining about them catching fire when some moron hits one parked with its ass end stuck out on the roadway at 70 or 80 miles an hour.

[TripleTransAm]

The old Blazer had a worse record of rollovers after tire failure than the Explorer, but I only saw that in the newspaper about twice.


No doubt about it. From 2001:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/rollover_tests.html

However, for some reason the GM offerings seem to score better than the Ford offering for 2004:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/ford_sporttrac.html

I wonder what they changed.

But I hear you on the PR issue: these don't do much for reassuring the public. If you've got nothing to hide, there shouldn't be any fuss to make, no?

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/pubcit_rollover_ford.html
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/nhtsa_ford_roof.html
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/ford_rollover_documents.html

Good to see Volvo taking the high road and sticking to their guns regarding structural issues.

About not knowing how to drive: we had a thread recently about putting the spare donut on the front versus the rear, and how it's a no brainer to put the donut on the rear to prevent loss of control. Wouldn't that argument apply here? At what point is it the driver's responsibility to assume the consequences of an emergency maneouver?

Anyway, that's why I bought a Marauder anyway. Should be hard to roll a MM, no? :rasta:

[texascorvette]

Anyway, that's why I bought a Marauder anyway. Should be hard to roll a MM, no? :rasta:[/quote]

The MM is a pretty stable vehicle. You might be able to roll it if you drove it over a cliff.

Biggest problem with any blowout is that people want to hit the brakes instead of just taking their foot off the accelerator and letting the car slow to a safer braking speed on its own. A lot of deaths and injuries have needlessly happened over the years, just because a drivers license lets you pilot anything you can afford to buy--whether you're competent to drive it or not.

[Marauder2005]

An officer by me rolled a 2005 CVPI trying to max it out/test power.

he was going 107 mph and rolled it. I know him well, but stupid people

can manage anything :)

[Warpath]

Well , I didnt want to say this earlier but since your brought it up ill have explain. 2 years ago F was selling at 15 now 8. Two years ago DCX 38 now 52. There isnt any comparison to tech stocks, you want to compare tech stocks who are mere infants to the megaliths that are domestic car companies? I dont see it. And yes the share cost DOES matter. Ford has been declining , DCX rising. why? ford's not making anything new and exciting. Other car companies are. If you dont beleive me go look up the charts.

This post addresses my comments. Pointing out that one company is doing better than another because thier stock is increasing while the other is decreasing is useful to me. Telling me that one company is better than another because their stock is $50 vs. $8 doesn't mean anything to me. I could reply that a tech stock was over $100 and by the latter logic, that tech company is a better company which isn't true.

On the other subject, I personally believe that Firestone didn't get treated unfairly. If you look at the NHTSA findings, the Explorer doesn't handle any differently with a blown tire than any other vehicle. The fact that the tire is blown far exceeds any handling differences in vehicles. The real problem is that people do not check their tire pressures. The tires detreaded because they were well under the recommended pressure. That is why the gov't is now requiring OEMs to install tire pressure monitors in vehices. I think all vehicles are required to have them by something like 2010.

Ford is coming out with the Roll Stability Control and other things in response to customer's declining confidence in the Explorer. If everyone knew how to drive, it wouldn't need it. Its unfortunate that there isn't anything that forces people to learn how to drive a vehicle properly. Its even more difficult since every vehicle is a little different.

[DOHCMERC]

Ford is making that vehicle. It's called the Adrenaline. Has the old 390hp Lightning/Cobra motor in it.


Ummmmm.....the Cobra and Lightning motors are not the same.

We'll see how the ST pans out.........as usual, Ford may be a day late and a dollar short.

Marauder............equal to a GM car from 7 years earlier....getting creamed by butt-ugly DCX cars.

'03 Cobra.........finally kicks the crap outta F-bodies that don't exist.

Lightning.........Ford just ups and quits (sound familiar Marauder owners?)

Shelby GT500.....very excited till I found out the thing weighs a buck fiddy short of 2 TONS!!!!

As far as the 390 HP ST, DCX has the SRT version of a Grand Cherokee and GM has an SS Trailblazer. IMHO, if the ST falls even a few ticks short of these vehicles, I may be a defector when the Challenger Debuts.

I do like my Marauder, probably Trilogy it eventially, but I'm truley tired of always making excuses.

[metroplex]

I'm not sure if everyone here is on the same page, but the Exploder Sport Crap is not the same thing as an Exploder.

Think: Offspring of F-150 and Ranger with some Exploder styling cues. It's got an open "bed"...

The only reason I say this is because someone brought up the Trailblazer, Jeep Grand Cherokee, and the regular Exploder SUV and the rollover incidents with the rolloverstone tires. Those are all SUVs in the traditional sense, the Sport Trac is this:

http://fp.images.autos.msn.com/merismus/evox/stills/gallery/2201_37.jpg

[rayjay]

The base line is you can not drive a SUV type vehicle like a car, they do not handle or brake the same. I'm referring to stock, unmodified, off the shelf 4X4 SUVs. I have always felt that dealers should be required to train persons who buy them, how to drive them. Our Agency, along with some others in our area use them due to our winter weather conditions. By policy they are not to be used in a pursuit. The Troopers are using a few 2WD GM SUVs. The ones I've seen appear to be lower than stock. The taller members like them, but only use them when the roads are clear as they claim its pretty useless in snow.

[texascorvette]

Ummmmm.....the Cobra and Lightning motors are not the same.

We'll see how the ST pans out.........as usual, Ford may be a day late and a dollar short.

Marauder............equal to a GM car from 7 years earlier....getting creamed by butt-ugly DCX cars.

'03 Cobra.........finally kicks the crap outta F-bodies that don't exist.

Lightning.........Ford just ups and quits (sound familiar Marauder owners?)

Shelby GT500.....very excited till I found out the thing weighs a buck fiddy short of 2 TONS!!!!

As far as the 390 HP ST, DCX has the SRT version of a Grand Cherokee and GM has an SS Trailblazer. IMHO, if the ST falls even a few ticks short of these vehicles, I may be a defector when the Challenger Debuts.

I do like my Marauder, probably Trilogy it eventially, but I'm truley tired of always making excuses.

The only thing I might point out in your opinions is that the 300C would only equal a MM if you put fertilizer on it and watered it for a year or so. If you've ever sat your body in one, it should have been pretty apparent to you that the passenger compartment is cramped compared to a MM--and the trunk would fit in the MM trunk a couple times. The 300C is a helluva nice car, but it is a different size class when it comes to cubic space.

[metroplex]

The Magnum is/was classified originally as a truck. I believe it is considered a "SUV" by the EPA standards due to the fold-down rear seats creating extra cargo room.

My Vic's DEEP trunk is useless to me. It may have more cubic inches than say, my T-bird (80-82 Box Bird), but I'd have to stack my rifles in there rather than lay them out. In that respect, my T-bird's trunk has more easily accessible and usable room than the Panther's trunk. I can fit 3 AR-15s in the T-bird by laying them down on the floor of the trunk. In the Vic, the ARs sort of stack up a little and one time I had the flash suppressor on my 24" barrel jab at the side of the rear fender. :help:

We had 3 people try to get out the spare tire of a 03 Marauder at the track and we wondered how an old lady would be able to change the spare in the rain, let alone 3 guys. It hurts my back just to drag out my full-sized spare from the Vic. It's too deep and the spare tire sits too far for proper/safe leverage to remove.

I'd have to drive the 300C / Magnum R/T / Charger R/T for a week or more to assess the driver legroom before passing judgement. I'm sure the 345 hp V8 factory stock engine with factory warranty and Mercedes Benz 5-speed automatic and Mercedes Benz MDS will offset a smaller trunk.

[texascorvette]

The Magnum is/was classified originally as a truck. I believe it is considered a "SUV" by the EPA standards due to the fold-down rear seats creating extra cargo room.

My Vic's DEEP trunk is useless to me. It may have more cubic inches than say, my T-bird (80-82 Box Bird), but I'd have to stack my rifles in there rather than lay them out. In that respect, my T-bird's trunk has more easily accessible and usable room than the Panther's trunk. I can fit 3 AR-15s in the T-bird by laying them down on the floor of the trunk. In the Vic, the ARs sort of stack up a little and one time I had the flash suppressor on my 24" barrel jab at the side of the rear fender. :help:

We had 3 people try to get out the spare tire of a 03 Marauder at the track and we wondered how an old lady would be able to change the spare in the rain, let alone 3 guys. It hurts my back just to drag out my full-sized spare from the Vic. It's too deep and the spare tire sits too far for proper/safe leverage to remove.

I'd have to drive the 300C / Magnum R/T / Charger R/T for a week or more to assess the driver legroom before passing judgement. I'm sure the 345 hp V8 factory stock engine with factory warranty and Mercedes Benz 5-speed automatic and Mercedes Benz MDS will offset a smaller trunk.

Sort of boils down to what you want out of a car. I like the size of the MM and the fact that the trunk will hold 2 big golf bags and a couple big suitcases. The 300C is a great car and would work for me if we bought smaller golf bags and suitcases. That's just something we'd rather not do. It would be preferable for DCX to make a 300C the size of a MM--better yet the size of the '77 Chrysler New Yorker that I used to have, the car that was too big to fit in the garage!

[Mike Poore]

Ford has addressed those rollover concerns with a complete offering of advanced safety equipment, including Advance Trac with Roll Stability Control and side-curtain air bags."
:lol:


So, let me see if I'm understanding this.

Ford says that because they've added Advance Trac with Roll Stability Control, and side-curtain air bags, that roll-overs are OK with their customer base?

Is that what they're saying? OMG! :eek: :banned:

[texascorvette]

So, let me see if I'm understanding this.

Ford says that because they've added Advance Trac with Roll Stability Control, and side-curtain air bags, that roll-overs are OK with their customer base?

Is that what they're saying? OMG! :eek: :banned:

I don't know what Ford is trying to say.........but folks who don't know how to drive a high center-of-gravity vehicle run the risk of becoming a winner of the Darwin Award. And maybe we don't want candidates for the Darwin Award reproducing anyway!

[MM2004]

[quote=metroplex]I'm not sure if everyone here is on the same page, but the Exploder Sport Crap is not the same thing as an Exploder.

Think: Offspring of F-150 and Ranger with some Exploder styling cues. It's got an open "bed"...

The SportTrac is built on the same platform as the Explorer. And both vehicless run down the same assembly line. At least they do at LAP.

Not the F-150.

[DOHCMERC]

The only thing I might point out in your opinions is that the 300C would only equal a MM if you put fertilizer on it and watered it for a year or so. If you've ever sat your body in one, it should have been pretty apparent to you that the passenger compartment is cramped compared to a MM--and the trunk would fit in the MM trunk a couple times. The 300C is a helluva nice car, but it is a different size class when it comes to cubic space.

Drove a Magnum when it first came out......wasn't cramped but you're correct about the size diff.

My main point was that I hate how Ford seems to follow in performance.

I also chuckle when people complain about DOHC and torque.......there are freakin' minivans that weigh close to the same as our MM's with multivalve V6's that equal our stock times.

Won't even mention the Japanese and German DOHC V8's that flat smoke us.

The car is mismatched from the factory.....be it the trans, the convertor or even the axle ratio...........I did know this from the start and I've always intended to mod our Merc, but Fords stance on mods lately has me paranoid.

Don't get me wrong, I like the car.....and as an owner of an '04 Lightning, I even like the Sport Trac. I just wish Ford would jump AHEAD every now and then instead of playing catch-up.....or just giving up.

I think the Lightning was one of the few pre-emptive strikes by Ford....and where is it now???


Off topic...........while I agree with most on the styling(?) of DCX, has anyone seen the proposed Challenger?....:bows: (no drooly emoticon??)

[Mike Poore]

[quote=metroplex]I'm not sure if everyone here is on the same page, but the Exploder Sport Crap is not the same thing as an Exploder.

Think: Offspring of F-150 and Ranger with some Exploder styling cues. It's got an open "bed"...

The SportTrac is built on the same platform as the Explorer. And both vehicless run down the same assembly line. At least they do at LAP.

Not the F-150.

Well, hell, if they're making a BFD out of stuffing a DOHC 4.6 in an Explorer, I don't understand how anyone would notice. :coffee:

We've had an '03 and now an '05 Lincoln Aviator with that motor, wonderful 5sp tranny, and IRS rear.

Isn't that what they're making the big fuss about in the "NEW" Adrenaline?:rolleyes:

Wake me up when they come up with something new. :snoopy:

[DOHCMERC]

[quote=MM2004]
:mad2:

Wake me up when they come up with something new. :snoopy:


WAKEY WAKEY no play with SNAKEY..........How about a supercharger and about 85 more horsepower???

[Marauder2005]

Can't make everyone happy, but one things for sure it will run 13s all

day long and w/ a few mods will do much better. Hell of alot

better then any MM from the factory.

[Mike Poore]

[quote=Mike Poore]


WAKEY WAKEY no play with SNAKEY..........How about a supercharger and about 85 more horsepower???

SUPERCHARGER!! :eek:

Now I'm awake, ....and I knew that, from the first post...... sorry ....I'll just go over here and take another nap.:geezer:

[DOHCMERC]

[quote=DOHCMERC]

SUPERCHARGER!! :eek:

Now I'm awake, ....and I knew that, from the first post...... sorry ....I'll just go over here and take another nap.:geezer:



LOL!!!!............I actually talked a good friend into an Aviator, she's ready to kill me because of the economy (or lack thereof)

I had figured on numbers close to our Marauders based on weight and motor etc....even figured advantage to the SUV because of the 5 speed, at least in city driving..........Boy was I wrong!!!:shake:

She actually gets close to my V10 Crew Cab in overall........about 12ish....about the same as our Lightning. She hasn't done an extended trip yet.

What's your MPG in the Lincoln????

[TripleTransAm]

LOL!!!!............I actually talked a good friend into an Aviator, she's ready to kill me because of the economy (or lack thereof)

Does she spend a lot of time idling? I've noticed idling makes a HUGE dent in my MPG figures (all it seems to take is 20-30 minutes while waiting for my wife to finish shopping, scraping ice, etc.etc. and I can kiss at least 2-3 MPG goodbye on that tankful if I recall correctly).

[DOHCMERC]

Does she spend a lot of time idling? I've noticed idling makes a HUGE dent in my MPG figures (all it seems to take is 20-30 minutes while waiting for my wife to finish shopping, scraping ice, etc.etc. and I can kiss at least 2-3 MPG goodbye on that tankful if I recall correctly).


I'll axe..........kinda doubt it though, we're in Vegas.....no need to defrost!!

I used to commonly let the V10 idle with the A/C on for the pup while I ran errands...........didn't seem to make a lot of difference. Always around 11 overall and up to 13 on trips.

The Marauder is amazing........during HIGH speed runs to So.Cal it'll pull low 20's. I'd bet mid 20's if I could keep it @ 75.

[Mike Poore]

[quote=Mike Poore]



LOL!!!!............I actually talked a good friend into an Aviator, she's ready to kill me because of the economy (or lack thereof)

I had figured on numbers close to our Marauders based on weight and motor etc....even figured advantage to the SUV because of the 5 speed, at least in city driving..........Boy was I wrong!!!:shake:

She actually gets close to my V10 Crew Cab in overall........about 12ish....about the same as our Lightning. She hasn't done an extended trip yet.

What's your MPG in the Lincoln????

Too early to tell, with just 3k on the clock, but we did about 16 to Ohio & back last weekend with three aboard and a ton of Christmas stuff, ....all turnpike driving. Tell her to wait until about 20K on it, as that's when our '03 started pushing 20 for mostly country driving. ;)

[texascorvette]

[quote=Mike Poore]



LOL!!!!............I actually talked a good friend into an Aviator, she's ready to kill me because of the economy (or lack thereof)

I had figured on numbers close to our Marauders based on weight and motor etc....even figured advantage to the SUV because of the 5 speed, at least in city driving..........Boy was I wrong!!!:shake:

She actually gets close to my V10 Crew Cab in overall........about 12ish....about the same as our Lightning. She hasn't done an extended trip yet.

What's your MPG in the Lincoln????

Sounds like my wife and her Expedition. She gets 11-12MPG. I get about 15-16. Women like to jackrabbit start, and then race up to the stop sign and stomp on the brakes. Can't imagine why there's a difference in MPG. Oh yeah, new brakes twice as often, too.

[Mike Poore]

[quote=Mike Poore]
LOL!!!!............I actually talked a good friend into an Aviator, she's ready to kill me because of the economy (or lack thereof)

Here's another answer I know she's not gonna like, so please don't tell her.

She's driving a vehicle that stickered for nearly $50,000; that has a system that will cool/heat her perfect buns. Why is she *****ing about fuel economy? If she can't afford to put fuel in it, why .........you know the rest.

Thing is, we're on our second one, and there will be no more manufactured.

Simply put, this is the best vehicle we've ever owned, period! :)

[rayjay]

[quote=DOHCMERC]

Sounds like my wife and her Expedition. She gets 11-12MPG. I get about 15-16. Women like to jackrabbit start, and then race up to the stop sign and stomp on the brakes. Can't imagine why there's a difference in MPG. Oh yeah, new brakes twice as often, too.

Its universal??? I thought only my wife did that :D "Gee, dear, I can't figure out why you need brakes again. Do you think it might have something to do with nose diving the car to pull into the driveway?" ( we live on a steep enough hill that I never use my brakes, gravity does the braking)

[DOHCMERC]

[quote=DOHCMERC]

Here's another answer I know she's not gonna like, so please don't tell her.

She's driving a vehicle that stickered for nearly $50,000; that has a system that will cool/heat her perfect buns. Why is she *****ing about fuel economy? If she can't afford to put fuel in it, why .........you know the rest.

Thing is, we're on our second one, and there will be no more manufactured.

Simply put, this is the best vehicle we've ever owned, period! :)


There's some irony to that statement......When shopping, she was looking at Exploders and the like.....even considered an Escape!!

When Ford/Lincoln was whoring the Aviator out last year @ $400 for 36 months, it was that and my recommendation that swayed her.

[texascorvette]

[quote=texascorvette]

Its universal??? I thought only my wife did that :D "Gee, dear, I can't figure out why you need brakes again. Do you think it might have something to do with nose diving the car to pull into the driveway?" ( we live on a steep enough hill that I never use my brakes, gravity does the braking)Sounds like my wife has a sister she doesn't know about. Does yours wear the numbers off credit cards, too?

[rayjay]

[quote=rayjay]Sounds like my wife has a sister she doesn't know about. Does yours wear the numbers off credit cards, too?

ONLY HER OWN.