It is happening more and more these days and with the “original” SUV (the Explorer) going to a unibody I ask will this move the sales numbers up anywhere near where they used to be (I know 500k a year is not going to happen but perhaps 100K)?
The weight savings is listed at 200lbs (I would have thought more).
Just so I don’t have to make another thread what is the general feeling about more cars comming with engine shutdown at stoplights and such? I have had only one incident where if I could not have moved right NOW I would have been hit hard (by a garbage truck). It seems we are trusting a lot to the technology that starts the car back up when you need it.The manufactures seem to be staying up late looking for every last thing that can help mpg and engine shutdown when the car is stopped does help with mpg.
Many are predicting gas prices to go up by a buck pretty soon, does anyone also read the “tea leaves” like this?
From what I hear, the new Explorer will share the Edge platform, so that’s probably got more to do with it than anything else. Also, SUVs used to be touted as offroad vehicles, but there might be 1% of SUVs bought today are used for going offroad.
As for the stop-start feature, it’s big in Europe, and the technology has been around for a little while over there, so they’ve atleast had some time to work out most of the bugs. It’s also been around in the hybrids, so it’s been proven to be effective for some time now.
The new Explorer had its towing capacity reduced but just like the off road stat. bscar cites very little towing was done with the Explorer so FORD did not see themselves loosing too many customers over reduced towing capacity.
I probably would like a disable switch on the “engine stop” feature. As it was pointed out to me with the Coni-seal mainteance monitoring system, technology fails and who is going to pay when the system does not allow you to get out of the way of a crossed up garbage truck bearing down on you?
The Jeep Cherokee is uni-body. But this automatic shut down? What triggers the shut down and what is required to re-start. I mean, if I sit for 30 seconds does the computer decide that I’m wasting fuel and kill the engine just as the light changes to green.
AMC was 25+ years(as usual) ahead of the curve of not only 4 door SUVs but unibody’s with the original Jeep Cherokee. It was beyond capable off road and more so than any Ford Explorer ever was on its best day.
Ford just woke up to the reality.
Not sure on instant start but the hesitation is likely a second with a warm well running motor.
It is happening more and more these days and with the “original” SUV (the Explorer) going to a unibody…
The ORIGINAL???
The Cherokee was the original…The Explorer was actually very late in the game (first introduced in 1990). The 4-door pathfinder came out January of 90 and was called a 90 model year…the Explorer came out in March of 90 and was called a 91 model year. By then GM/Toyota/Nissan/Jeep already had 4-door SUV’s.
Nissan went that path also with the Unibody construction for a few years…Then went back to body on Frame. The Grand Cherokee is STILL Unibody and always has been Unibody.
Unless you do a lot of offroading…or rock climbing or towing…unibody is fine.
The ORIGINAL???
I would go back even further than the CHerokee to the Willys Overland, often called the Jeep Station Wagon that went on the market right after WW II in 1946. In 1949, the Overland could be had with 4 wheel drive. I believe a larger model with a 6 cylinder engine was introduced about this time.
There was also a Jeep model called the Wagoneer that was introduced in the early 1960’s. I think these vehicles had the concept of the SUV.
Or even the International Scout…But the MODERN SUV…the Jeep is considered the Original. Ford Explorer was actually late to the table.
The Wagoneer was HUGE…I owned one for about a month…Dual gas tanks…
The Explorer does deserver the “tag” “Original SUV” because it has the sales figures and the name recognition that other SUV’s don’t have. FORD says that 9 out of 10 car shoppers recognize the Explorer brand and USA Today writer Chris Woodward calls the Explore name “once synonymous with the lable SUV”. Is this good enough to win at “Who wants to be a Millionaire” (even the Fox version) probably not, but the Explorer made the name “SUV”.
This dispute over "does the Explorer deserve to be called “The original SUV” was not a question I posed but I did want to see if the Explorer moving closer to a car than a truck bothered anyone.
With FORD saying that it will soon install automatic engine on/off in all its vehicles I did wonder how people felt about this technology as some of the other vehicle “enhancements” (like the back-up camera, and proposed 3rd party monitoring systems, and even ABS to a large degree) have not always been well recieved. So the story is, we don’t trust technology to tell us about a systems state of health but we do trust it to not fail and start our vehicle automaticaly 100% of the time, interesting.
OldSchool…
Start/Stop has been successfully implemented on certain models in Europe (from Ford/ Porsche/BMW/Volvo) since about 2005 without any issues.
In the US the Panamera 4S and the Cayenne S have this system. I test drove the Cayenne several months back, and the whole start/stop was fully transparent to me. It even comes with an ON/OFF button, so that the system could be disabled if the driver so chooses. Porsche is listing the battery and starter as maintenance items on models with Start/Stop.
It needs mentioning that Start/Stop technology for ICE cars is 100% different from start/stop for Hybrid cars, and the 2 cannot be compared.
IMHO, if well engineered and implemented, this tech will not pose any risk for the driver/pass in an emergency situation like you’re describing.
Ford will start implementing Start/Stop in USA soon:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS222045397720101230
Then why are people so distrustful of using technology to report on the state of health in regards to various systems on their cars? It would seem logical if a start/stop system could be made failsafe (which I agree it can) why can’t a systems monitoring and report system be made just as reliable?
The Explorer does deserver the “tag” “Original SUV” because it has the sales figures and the name recognition that other SUV’s don’t have.
According to WHO??? It didn’t have name recognition until it’s 2nd or 3rd year…And sales of the GMC Jimmy or Blazer were way ahead of the Explorer…Sorry…but the Explorer was NEVER considered the Original SUV…no matter who you ask.
I had a manual transmission with the auto shut off. The engine shut down when the car stopped and started as soon as I pushed the clutch in. I’m sure that the engine could restart when the gas pedal is pushed as well. Restart was immediate. It seemed a bit weird at first, but I got used to it after a while. I believe that the auto stop feature can be disabled.
“…why can’t a systems monitoring and report system be made just as reliable?”
Of course it can. Just look at the oil monitoring systems. GM has used the OLM for almost 30 years, and its success has been documented in peer reviews (e.g., SAE). OnStar can collect and report numerous parameters through the ECM. But some people don’t trust these and other advances no matter how mature they are. It’s just natural skepticism in some people.
OK, was the objection to the Coni-seal program an objection to ME or an objection of the program?
I have no emotional attachment to the Cherokee but I was impressed with them as soon as the 4.0L was offered in it and bought an '88 model and was pleased with it until its demise at 300,000 miles. Jeep seemed to hit the mark as far as size and power and relative economy. My wife got out of a Tempo and never missed it in any setting. It was as easily parked, at least as easy to handle in traffic. The fuel mileage was very near that of the Tempo and it seemed like a safer vehicle for her and the kids. It was a much better station wagon than any other maker offered. I believe that Chrysler bought AMC just to get the Cherokee. Apparently it was quite a market leader at the time.
I have no emotional attachment to the Cherokee but I was impressed with them as soon as the 4.0L was offered in it and bought an '88 model and was pleased with it until its demise at 300,000 miles. Jeep seemed to hit the mark as far as size and power and relative economy.
I looked at the Cherokee when they first came out…I do like the 4.0l engine…The one I test drove was a piece of $%*# vehicle. Had less then 2 miles on it when I test drove it…So a month later I decided to drive another one from a different dealer…thinking maybe that first test was a fluke…Same thing…the fit and finish of that vehicle was DISMAL…They had a great idea…but their quality control was awful. Chryslers wasn’t much better.