Ford is embracing a new marketing strategy with the introduction of its' 2011 Explorer. Instead of customers paying more for larger engined, higher HP packages, Ford will now charge more for the smaller displacement, lower HP option.
One wonders if this will be successful, or if we'll see a quick reversal of this decision.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-26/ford-asks-buyers-to-pay-more-for-mileage-than-horsepower-on-next-explorer.html
If that "more for less" was a small turbo diesel with real, actual mileage and longevity commensurate with the price increase. I don't want to spend just to get less power and 2% better gas mileage.
Hey, it works for Apple 
I thought maybe they started a pay $5k extra and you can build your own engine on your Ford Flex or something.
I dunno, I can jive with it. Though, it's not the kind of vehicle I'd buy anyway...
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: If that "more for less" was a small turbo diesel with real, actual mileage and longevity commensurate with the price increase. I don't want to spend just to get less power and 2% better gas mileage.
I would be all over it too for a small 4cylinder turbo diesel
How much was the V8 Mustang compared to the turbo'd 2.3?
zomby woof wrote: How much was the V8 Mustang compared to the turbo'd 2.3?
Don't know the numbers, but I don't think a base 5.0 LX vs SVT is a fair comparison to a big vs small engined Explorer.
I did not see the torque numbers, mpg, or any meaningful specs in the article other than 290 hp for the v6 and 53 less for the diesel. A diesel 4 banger making 237 hp could well be making 350 ft lbs. adjust gearing accordingly and go. "Cubic inches" or "number of cylinders" is a really lousy gross barometer of value but those sorts of terms have been driving marketing for a long time so it could be a real bottom line issue to be sure. I personally am looking forward to the right diesel wagon with 4 driven wheels (depending on traction) at the right price for 80 mph long range high mpg use. HP or number of cylinders will not be a factor in the choice.
I was in Thailand for a spell and the turbo charged inter-cooled 4 banger toyota four runner equivalents where everywhere and really good to drive with much better mpg numbers that a gas equivalent.
I looked at the Ford site and they have the diesel spec'ed at 250 ftlbs and 19 mpg city as tested by Ford with epa milage pending. no numbers on the v6. This package looks like a looser to me too. BMW is making a fantastic inline 6 diesel that makes 265 hp and 425 ftlbs while returning 22/35.
In reply to Shaun:
its not a diesel, its a 2.0l turbo direct injected gas.
here's a fun fact: the previous gen explorer came with a sohc 4.0l v6 making 210 hp, the new four makes 237hp from half the displacement.
the early 4-runner was called the hilux surf overseas.
supposedly the wrangler may get a diesel for 2012, if it doesn't suck, it will make things very interesting.
still waiting for a diesel xterra or 4runner (or a 4runner that isn't the size of a land cruiser, for that matter)
Strizzo wrote: In reply to Shaun: its not a diesel, its a 2.0l turbo direct injected gas. here's a fun fact: the previous gen explorer came with a sohc 4.0l v6 making 210 hp, the new four makes 237hp from half the displacement. the early 4-runner was called the hilux surf overseas. supposedly the wrangler may get a diesel for 2012, if it doesn't suck, it will make things very interesting. still waiting for a diesel xterra or 4runner (or a 4runner that isn't the size of a land cruiser, for that matter)
I totally missed that! I just didn't occur to me....that you would....offer....wow. A total looser of a package IMO!
Strizzo wrote: here's a fun fact: the previous gen explorer came with a sohc 4.0l v6 making 210 hp, the new four makes 237hp from half the displacement.
But how much torque do they make? Where's the powerband? It's too vague to try and sum up the worth of an engine in one number and an abbreviation.
I never bought the "we can make a six that gets the mileage of a four but acts exactly like an eight!" They may make the same power, but in different ways.
A diesel Wrangler could be a really kick ass machine. But it’s not always the miracle cure people make it out to be. There are always a few people trying to swap a Cummins 4BT into their Wrangler. It’s a good engine. A good, heavy, expensive engine that doesn’t quite stand up to the multitude of other good engines that are available for relatively straightforward swaps, like the Chrysler LA 5.2L and 5.9L for example. Skipping the 4BT and going straight for the 5.9L will get you more horsies and more torque in a low-down powerband, right where you want it. For more money and less power, you could go with the 4BT. Stick with the Chrysler engines and you can even keep your stock gauge cluster. If Jeep offers a diesel from the factory that puts out more torque down low than the V6, then it’ll have a winner.
In reply to JeepinMatt:
What little torque there was, it was down low. Had one as a rental for a week, and it fell on it's face at the top end. I know it's not a apples to apples comparison, but I just thought it interesting that the motor people are up in arms about makes more power than the previous base motor with twice the displacement. Also, 19 mpg is about what the old 6 got on the highway
Strizzo wrote: supposedly the wrangler may get a diesel for 2012, if it doesn't suck, it will make things very interesting.
it will probably be another vm motori pile of E36 M3 and suck..
I'll probably buy one.
JeepinMatt wrote:Strizzo wrote: here's a fun fact: the previous gen explorer came with a sohc 4.0l v6 making 210 hp, the new four makes 237hp from half the displacement.But how much torque do they make? Where's the powerband? It's too vague to try and sum up the worth of an engine in one number and an abbreviation. I never bought the "we can make a six that gets the mileage of a four but acts exactly like an eight!" They may make the same power, but in different ways. A diesel Wrangler could be a really kick ass machine. But it’s not always the miracle cure people make it out to be. There are always a few people trying to swap a Cummins 4BT into their Wrangler. It’s a good engine. A good, heavy, expensive engine that doesn’t quite stand up to the multitude of other good engines that are available for relatively straightforward swaps, like the Chrysler LA 5.2L and 5.9L for example. Skipping the 4BT and going straight for the 5.9L will get you more horsies and more torque in a low-down powerband, right where you want it. For more money and less power, you could go with the 4BT. Stick with the Chrysler engines and you can even keep your stock gauge cluster. If Jeep offers a diesel from the factory that puts out more torque down low than the V6, then it’ll have a winner.
Yes but when you experience a 4bt swapped wrangler done right there is no other motor that seems right for a jeep... Ask the duke.. he can attest to my statement
Strizzo wrote: In reply to JeepinMatt: What little torque there was, it was down low. Had one as a rental for a week, and it fell on it's face at the top end. I know it's not a apples to apples comparison, but I just thought it interesting that the motor people are up in arms about makes more power than the previous base motor with twice the displacement. Also, 19 mpg is about what the old 6 got on the highway
Where did you rent one and what kind (TJ, JK?)? I've repeatedly wished that they would bring a good diesel to the US. I know the power is down low, which is about the only place it would make sense in rig like that, but 4.0L's and several common V8's have a great deal of torque down low too. I'm in no way saying it wouldn't make a good swap for an off road vehicle, just for the money and effort I would go with a different swap.
oldsaw wrote:zomby woof wrote: How much was the V8 Mustang compared to the turbo'd 2.3?Don't know the numbers, but I don't think a base 5.0 LX vs SVT is a fair comparison to a big vs small engined Explorer.
SVT vs GT 5.0?
Why not?
well.. this falls into the old argument.. do people really need HUGE horsepower numbers for their daily commute or coffee run?
Ford actually tried a version of this "strategy" once or twice before....during each gas crisis of the '70s. It only works if the competition can't beat you on price, which is what Ford found out.
I think this pricing policy will work this time, tho, because Ford has better engines in it's lineup and better vehicles to put those engines into.
In reply to JeepinMatt:
I was talking about the explorer motors.
Jeep already sells a diesel wrangler overseas btw.
You'll need to log in to post.
