Ford Explorer ST? - Page 2
Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    Welcome to VWvortex - The Volkswagen Enthusiast Website.
    You're currently browsing VWvortex site as a guest. Please sign up or sign in and take part in the conversation. VWvortex has over 750,000+ registered users discussing a wide variety of Volkswagen related topics. Take a minute to sign up to enjoy all the features of VWvortex.
    The Car Lounge
    Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
    Results 26 to 50 of 114
    1. #26
      Member Pushrods's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 14th, 2001
      Posts
      7,567
      Quote Originally Posted by CTK View Post
      You really need to let go of this idea that people should only be allowed to buy SUVs to go offroading, or the general notion that you can dictate what people should or shouldn't buy. I feel like you're still reeling from TCL's rejection of your UrS4 suggestion.

      You should have checked out this summer’s Boat Lounge thread.
      2017 Chevy SS | 1977 Trans Am
      ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

    2. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    3. #27
      Member Pushrods's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 14th, 2001
      Posts
      7,567
      Quote Originally Posted by downytide View Post
      https://youtu.be/F48PesABKvg

      They'll do 11's without too much mods.

      Yeah, I’ve seen some people are making pretty good numbers. An E50 tune only seems to boost things to just about 400 hp to the wheels.

      Realistically though, I probably wouldn’t be venturing much into modding at this point.
      2017 Chevy SS | 1977 Trans Am
      ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

    4. #28
      Member
      Join Date
      Jan 18th, 2018
      Posts
      7,689
      400whp + 4700lbs = 11s? They really make the most of their HP.... the X5M admittedly weighs a good 500-600lb more, but it has like 150-200 more HP and runs 12s
      Quote Originally Posted by QUIRKiT View Post
      I spent my entire season budget during the off-season on go fast parts, so now I'm wishing I hadn't and had saved a little so I could buy a sim rig.

    5. #29
      Member
      Join Date
      Apr 23rd, 2020
      Location
      Midwest
      Posts
      576
      Quote Originally Posted by CTK View Post
      You really need to let go of this idea that people should only be allowed to buy SUVs to go offroading, or the general notion that you can dictate what people should or shouldn't buy. I feel like you're still reeling from TCL's rejection of your UrS4 suggestion.
      Lmao, if people wanna spend more for something slower and handles worse and uses more gas.... .. go for it. I just don't get it. They can reject it all they want, no rejection will change my heart's desire for 5 cylinder awesomness.

    6. #30
      Member Pushrods's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 14th, 2001
      Posts
      7,567
      Quote Originally Posted by CTK View Post
      400whp + 4700lbs = 11s? They really make the most of their HP.... the X5M admittedly weighs a good 500-600lb more, but it has like 150-200 more HP and runs 12s

      I don’t really know about the video posted before, but I’m sure it had more than a tune to run 11s. I’m guessing exhaust, intercooler, maybe some meth. It’s definitely making more than 400 wheel though.

      I just meant people are getting to that power with just an E50 tune. No idea what they run with that.
      2017 Chevy SS | 1977 Trans Am
      ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

    7. #31
      Member Pushrods's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 14th, 2001
      Posts
      7,567
      Quote Originally Posted by ADDvanced View Post
      Lmao, if people wanna spend more for something slower and handles worse and uses more gas.... .. go for it. I just don't get it. They can reject it all they want, no rejection will change my heart's desire for 5 cylinder awesomness.

      This schtick is well past old now.
      2017 Chevy SS | 1977 Trans Am
      ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

    8. #32
      Member dwagner88's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 13th, 2011
      Location
      Chattanooga, TN
      Posts
      2,028
      I predict significant depreciation on these. Bad buy new, probably a good buy used or off lease. Just don’t get early production.
      Past: 1998 Accord V6 LX, 2007 Mazdaspeed 3 (KIA 2-24-11), 2009 Mazdaspeed 3 (KIA 9-19-11), 2003 Jetta GLS 2.slow (good riddance), 2010 VW GTI, 2011 Toyota Camry, 2006 NC Miata

    9. #33
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 12th, 2019
      Posts
      300
      Looked at one for the wife.

      Too small for our needs but its a pretty fun drive for an SUV. A simple tune gets them easily into the 12s in the 1/4 mile.

      I think Ford nailed this one. Only complaint is that stupid ipad looking center display
      Boiler Up!

    10. #34
      Member
      Join Date
      Jan 18th, 2018
      Posts
      7,689
      Quote Originally Posted by ADDvanced View Post
      Lmao, if people wanna spend more for something slower and handles worse and uses more gas.... .. go for it. I just don't get it. They can reject it all they want, no rejection will change my heart's desire for 5 cylinder awesomness.
      Everything you hate about SUVs is applicable to the UrS4 though. Compared to the other cars people were suggesting in that thread (STI, E36 M3 etc.) it's slower, worse handling and thirstier. And more expensive to keep running as a daily.

      This whole contrarian "I got my whole car philosophy from Jalopnik" deal is so corny.

      Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
      Quote Originally Posted by QUIRKiT View Post
      I spent my entire season budget during the off-season on go fast parts, so now I'm wishing I hadn't and had saved a little so I could buy a sim rig.

    11. #35
      Member
      Join Date
      Jan 18th, 2018
      Posts
      7,689
      Quote Originally Posted by dwagner88 View Post
      I predict significant depreciation on these. Bad buy new, probably a good buy used or off lease. Just don’t get early production.
      I dunno. With rental companies being damn near dead, I don't see fleet sales tanking resale. I guess we'll see

      Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
      Quote Originally Posted by QUIRKiT View Post
      I spent my entire season budget during the off-season on go fast parts, so now I'm wishing I hadn't and had saved a little so I could buy a sim rig.

    12. #36
      Member
      Join Date
      Apr 23rd, 2020
      Location
      Midwest
      Posts
      576
      Quote Originally Posted by CTK View Post
      Everything you hate about SUVs is applicable to the UrS4 though. Compared to the other cars people were suggesting in that thread (STI, E36 M3 etc.) it's slower, worse handling and thirstier. And more expensive to keep running as a daily.

      This whole contrarian "I got my whole car philosophy from Jalopnik" deal is so corny.

      Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
      K idk why you’re trying to derail the topic by personal attacks but if you think an e36 is faster than an urs4 you have some really good drugs.


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    13. #37
      Member
      Join Date
      Jan 18th, 2018
      Posts
      7,689
      Quote Originally Posted by ADDvanced View Post
      K idk why you’re trying to derail the topic by personal attacks but if you think an e36 is faster than an urs4 you have some really good drugs.


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
      Just pushing back on your gatekeeping. If sports cars can be bought and used for things besides racing and track driving then SUVs can be bought and used for things besides offroading. Not difficult to understand. You choose not to "get it".
      Quote Originally Posted by QUIRKiT View Post
      I spent my entire season budget during the off-season on go fast parts, so now I'm wishing I hadn't and had saved a little so I could buy a sim rig.

    14. #38
      Member
      Join Date
      Apr 23rd, 2020
      Location
      Midwest
      Posts
      576
      Quote Originally Posted by CTK View Post
      Just pushing back on your gatekeeping. If sports cars can be bought and used for things besides racing and track driving then SUVs can be bought and used for things besides offroading. Not difficult to understand. You choose not to "get it".
      Maybe your misunderstanding me. I’m not trying to gate keep. I’m saying I don’t understand the point of this car and I don’t understand who’s buying it.

      Anyone interested in handling would be better served by a wagon.

      Anyone interested in off-roading would be better served by a 4wd suv.

      So who is the target customer?


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    15. #39
      Member freedomgli's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 26th, 2002
      Location
      USA
      Posts
      12,389
      I just can’t fathom owning any Ford products except perhaps a few Mustang variants and their halo GT super cars. My trust in the brand is low based on my lifetime of accumulated experience.

    16. #40
      Member freedomgli's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 26th, 2002
      Location
      USA
      Posts
      12,389
      Quote Originally Posted by ADDvanced View Post
      Really don't understand the point of a RWD SUV. If you want something that handles well, get a car. If you want something you can offroad, RWD kind of sucks... so.... imho this is a crappy offroad vehicle that doesn't handle as well as a wagon/car would.
      It’s for the Ford guy who wants a fast family hauler that can tow a small boat, car, motorcycle or RV travel trailer. The ST model is AWD only, albeit a RWD biased system with a longitudinal mounted V6 engine and an electronicaly controlled transfer case hanging off the back of the 10sp automatic transmission to send power to the front axle.

      Only the Explorer base, XLT and Limited models are available in optional RWD only configuration.

    17. #41
      Senior Member Mike!'s Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 17th, 2002
      Location
      Ontario & Ohio
      Posts
      20,592
      Quote Originally Posted by ADDvanced View Post
      Maybe your misunderstanding me. I’m not trying to gate keep. I’m saying I don’t understand the point of this car and I don’t understand who’s buying it.

      Anyone interested in handling would be better served by a wagon.

      Anyone interested in off-roading would be better served by a 4wd suv.

      So who is the target customer?


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
      Lol, wagon? What century are you in? It’s like I’m reading year 2000 Car and Driver talking points in 2020.

      We were super close on the Explorer ST. Drove all the Explorer drivetrains and the CD6 platform begs for that engine. We wanted to like the Hybrid, and it was very smooth and silent off the line which was great, but not the same for passing power on the road. Back to the ST though, a vehicle that size, seating 6 or 7, has no business being that fun to stomp on. Very similar to various Durangos in that sense. It can haul the whole family, or 4ft sheets of building material, or tow your Mustang to the track, or maybe a lighter pontoon and also goes like stink when you want it to.

      We ended up sizing up but that’s no knock on the ST. It’s great in its niche.

    18. #42
      Member
      Join Date
      Apr 23rd, 2020
      Location
      Midwest
      Posts
      576
      Quote Originally Posted by freedomgli View Post
      It’s for the Ford guy who wants a fast family hauler that can tow a small boat, car, motorcycle or RV travel trailer. The ST model is AWD only, albeit a RWD biased system with a longitudinal mounted V6 engine and an electronicaly controlled transfer case hanging off the back of the 10sp automatic transmission to send power to the front axle.

      Only the Explorer base, XLT and Limited models are available in optional RWD only configuration.
      Ah ok. If it’s 4wd it makes way more sense. I swear I read it was going to be rwd only somehweee but I haven’t been paying too much attention. Sounds like a good tow rig if that’s the case.


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    19. #43
      Member
      Join Date
      Oct 22nd, 2007
      Location
      Syracuse, NY
      Posts
      4,644
      When they first announced it I thought it was ridiculous, but having seen a few and reading some reviews and such I am changing my tune. I would compare it to the X3 M40i as I'd compare the Mustang GT to the M240i. No reason one needs to pay all the markup if they want the capability/performance but aren't interested in fancy touch controls or whatever.

    20. #44
      Member
      Join Date
      Jan 18th, 2018
      Posts
      7,689
      It makes sense in RWD too. Before SUVs like this there weren't ever really 6-7 passenger vehicles that were fast, relatively fun to drive and able to tow ****. Now there are, and people buy them.

      Lol @ wagons. The only Americans still buying wagons are those who want to make a statement. Which is fine. But no more logical than buying something like this.
      Quote Originally Posted by QUIRKiT View Post
      I spent my entire season budget during the off-season on go fast parts, so now I'm wishing I hadn't and had saved a little so I could buy a sim rig.

    21. #45
      Senior Member 6cylVWguy's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 14th, 2000
      Location
      PA
      Posts
      27,333
      Blog Entries
      4
      The first problem with the Explorer ST, for me anyway, is the explorer at the base. I find it ugly. I vastly prefer the styling of the immediate previous gen version. I'd rather have a the previous gen Explorer Sport.

      I got to crawl around an ST when it first came out at dealers. For me, I just thought it was cheap looking. I thought all the things I could see were generally nicer in my jeep srt. I got the distinct impression that the Explorer ST was a trim package with a decent engine. Didn't seem all that performance oriented. And stock for stock, I'll take a 392 over a turbo 6 all day long.

      I suppose if I was someone who wanted a performance SUV that's a blank slate for modding, I'd be silly to go with anything else than the ST. I think Ford left a lot on the table. Maybe there will be an RS version?

      Lastly, I believe it was MT who did a fairly recent comparo of the ST vs Durango ST. The Durango won. That should say something when an ancient vehicle pretty handily beat out something much newer and modern.

      Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

    22. #46
      Member
      Join Date
      Apr 23rd, 2020
      Location
      Midwest
      Posts
      576
      Quote Originally Posted by CTK View Post
      It makes sense in RWD too. Before SUVs like this there weren't ever really 6-7 passenger vehicles that were fast, relatively fun to drive and able to tow ****. Now there are, and people buy them.

      Lol @ wagons. The only Americans still buying wagons are those who want to make a statement. Which is fine. But no more logical than buying something like this.
      IF it's only RWD, you don't want to go to a boat launch or you'll get stuck and have to have onlookers hop in the back of your vehicle and jump up and down while you do a burnout in a desperate attempt to pull your boat out of the water. It also won't tow sleds very well; it'll work on the highway but once you get up north with copious amounts of white stuff, it won't work very well. I sold my RWD truck because it was such **** at towing boats/sleds.

      Wagons are for people who enjoy driving dynamics and handling.

    23. #47
      Member
      Join Date
      Jan 18th, 2018
      Posts
      7,689
      Quote Originally Posted by ADDvanced View Post
      IF it's only RWD, you don't want to go to a boat launch or you'll get stuck and have to have onlookers hop in the back of your vehicle and jump up and down while you do a burnout in a desperate attempt to pull your boat out of the water. It also won't tow sleds very well; it'll work on the highway but once you get up north with copious amounts of white stuff, it won't work very well. I sold my RWD truck because it was such **** at towing boats/sleds.
      OK

      Quote Originally Posted by ADDvanced View Post
      Wagons are for people who enjoy driving dynamics and handling.
      Wagons basically don't exist in the new car market, and most people don't give a **** about driving dynamics or handling. Everyone doesn't look at and enjoy cars within the Jalopnik hivemind paradigm.
      Quote Originally Posted by QUIRKiT View Post
      I spent my entire season budget during the off-season on go fast parts, so now I'm wishing I hadn't and had saved a little so I could buy a sim rig.

    24. #48
      Member CostcoPizza's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 20th, 2008
      Location
      USA
      Posts
      7,217
      Quote Originally Posted by CTK View Post
      It makes sense in RWD too. Before SUVs like this there weren't ever really 6-7 passenger vehicles that were fast, relatively fun to drive and able to tow ****. Now there are, and people buy them.

      Lol @ wagons. The only Americans still buying wagons are those who want to make a statement Which is fine. But no more logical than buying something like this.
      Yep, if you look closely at the 45-65yr olds I often see driving Alltrack, E-Class and 3er wagons you can see them endlessly scrolling on Jalopnik.
      Last edited by CostcoPizza; 11-07-2020 at 11:53 AM.

    25. #49
      Member Pushrods's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 14th, 2001
      Posts
      7,567
      Quote Originally Posted by ADDvanced View Post
      IF it's only RWD, you don't want to go to a boat launch or you'll get stuck and have to have onlookers hop in the back of your vehicle and jump up and down while you do a burnout in a desperate attempt to pull your boat out of the water. It also won't tow sleds very well; it'll work on the highway but once you get up north with copious amounts of white stuff, it won't work very well. I sold my RWD truck because it was such **** at towing boats/sleds.

      Wagons are for people who enjoy driving dynamics and handling.


      We’ve established that the ST is AWD.

      Last time I checked, there aren’t any wagons that will tow 5600 lbs.


      Are we done?
      2017 Chevy SS | 1977 Trans Am
      ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

    26. #50
      Member fireside's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 23rd, 2008
      Posts
      2,446
      Quote Originally Posted by Pushrods View Post
      We’ve established that the ST is AWD.

      Last time I checked, there aren’t any wagons that will tow 5600 lbs.


      Are we done?
      The guy **** on my Explorer thread too don't feel bad.
      2020 F-150 XLT Sport | 302A | SuperCrew | 2.7L EB | 4x4 | magnetic metallic
      2020 Explorer Limited | 300A | 2.3L EB | 4x4 | iconic silver
      USA TRUMP 2020 USA

    Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast