Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    New Survey Reveals There's More Apprehension To Autonomous Tech

      Blame the number of recent crashes involving self-driving cars

    Most people aren't so keen on letting an autonomous system take control of their vehicle according to a new survey done by Cox Automotive.

    Nearly 85 percent of the 1,250 people surveyed said they should have the option to drive themselves even in a self-driving vehicle. Only 16 percent said they would feel comfortable allowing a autonomous driving system take over. When asked if they would be a fully-autonomous vehicle (Level 5 under SAE's vehicle autonomy guidelines), almost half said no. Automotive News notes that is up from the 30 percent of people surveyed in 2016.

    Why the increases in overall apprehension? It mostly comes down to number of crashes that autonomous vehicles have been involve in, such as the Uber crash that killed a pedestrian.

    “People now have a deeper understanding of the complexities involved when creating a self-driving car, and that has them reconsidering their comfort level when it comes to handing over control,” said Karl Brauer, executive publisher of Autotrader and Kelley Blue Book.

    In the past two years, awareness into self-driving tech increased 24 percent. But the perception of the safety of self-driving vehicles dropped 20 percent.

    Despite the trepidation, Cox believes the adoption of self-driving vehicles will gain traction - bringing big implications for automakers and dealers.

    “Miles traveled will shift toward fleet-owned vehicles, causing what we believe to be a potential 40 percent reduction in consumer vehicle sales,” said Isabelle Helms, vice president of research and market intelligence at Cox Automotive.

    We should note that Cox Automotive does an interest in the self-driving marketplace. Automotive News says the company has created a new unit that will sell software and services for car-sharing, ride-hailing, subscription programs, and, eventually, self-driving taxi fleets.

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)



    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Technology is cool, but we are not there yet and I think it will take a generation, aka 10 years to get there.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    8 hours ago, dfelt said:

    Technology is cool, but we are not there yet and I think it will take a generation, aka 10 years to get there.

    I am not sure it will take 10 years.  I would give it 20-25 years so that all the bugs are out and the AI won't try to kill us.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    One of the main demographics for AD vehicles is supposedly the elderly, but they are going to be the LEAST likely to accept such a scenario.

    AD is going to have a WORSE take rate than EVs over the same time period. OEMs should focus on the EV obstacle first, THEN turn to AD... but always with the reality that it'll never become mainstream.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 8/18/2018 at 6:30 AM, balthazar said:

    One of the main demographics for AD vehicles is supposedly the elderly, but they are going to be the LEAST likely to accept such a scenario.

    AD is going to have a WORSE take rate than EVs over the same time period. OEMs should focus on the EV obstacle first, THEN turn to AD... but always with the reality that it'll never become mainstream.

    True, things for the bulk of those 50 plus never become mainstream to them.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      There has been a prevailing thought about the likes of Uber and Lyft that once they switch from human drivers to self-driving vehicles, they would stand to see a significant reduction in overall operating costs. This possibly means consumers could see these services as an alternative to owning a vehicle. But a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) disputes that claim.
      Researchers Ashley Nunes and Kristen D. Hernandez examined the San Francisco market on the per-mile cost of an automated taxi service to owning a vehicle. They found an automated taxi would range between $1.58 and $6.01 per mile, while the conventional vehicle would be at $0.72 per mile.
      "When we started going into this work, we found there's a lot of hand-waving. There was a notion that 'All we have to do is remove the driver, assume a reduction in insurance, and there's our great number.' We said, 'Let's hold it up to scrutiny.' It didn't hold up," explained Nunes to Automotive News.
      The massive disparity gap isn't due to ownership or maintenance, rather a fundamental issue about the taxi market in general. Nunes said taxi operators drive too many miles without a paying customer - hence their higher costs. In San Francisco, the MIT researchers found a 52 percent utilization rate for ride-hailing. Even if they were able to reach 100 percent utilization, Nunes said they would still be "unable to provide a fare that's comparable to car ownership."
      "Their approach with the investment folks has been, 'Trust us, we'll figure this out and it'll be this great utopia where everyone is jumping from an Uber to a scooter to an air taxi.The future may well be all those things. But you need to demonstrate you can offer the service at a price point that consumers are willing and able to pay. Thus far, they are unable to do so," said Nunes.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      There has been a prevailing thought about the likes of Uber and Lyft that once they switch from human drivers to self-driving vehicles, they would stand to see a significant reduction in overall operating costs. This possibly means consumers could see these services as an alternative to owning a vehicle. But a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) disputes that claim.
      Researchers Ashley Nunes and Kristen D. Hernandez examined the San Francisco market on the per-mile cost of an automated taxi service to owning a vehicle. They found an automated taxi would range between $1.58 and $6.01 per mile, while the conventional vehicle would be at $0.72 per mile.
      "When we started going into this work, we found there's a lot of hand-waving. There was a notion that 'All we have to do is remove the driver, assume a reduction in insurance, and there's our great number.' We said, 'Let's hold it up to scrutiny.' It didn't hold up," explained Nunes to Automotive News.
      The massive disparity gap isn't due to ownership or maintenance, rather a fundamental issue about the taxi market in general. Nunes said taxi operators drive too many miles without a paying customer - hence their higher costs. In San Francisco, the MIT researchers found a 52 percent utilization rate for ride-hailing. Even if they were able to reach 100 percent utilization, Nunes said they would still be "unable to provide a fare that's comparable to car ownership."
      "Their approach with the investment folks has been, 'Trust us, we'll figure this out and it'll be this great utopia where everyone is jumping from an Uber to a scooter to an air taxi.The future may well be all those things. But you need to demonstrate you can offer the service at a price point that consumers are willing and able to pay. Thus far, they are unable to do so," said Nunes.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
    • By William Maley
      When one automaker comes up with an interesting idea, usually others will follow. See German crossover 'coupes' as an example. With Ford working on a hybrid version of the Mustang, it doesn't come as a surprise that Chevrolet is looking into this as well.
      Back in August, a poster on the Camaro6 forum got a screenshot with a survey asking Camaro owners which powertrain they would consider if they bought a new sports car. Respondents were given the four choices listed below, or None of the Above:
      4 Cylinder, 2.7L, Turbo engine, 310 HP, 25 mpg combined, 0-60 mph in 5.2 seconds - $0 4 Cylinder, 2.0L, Hybrid Turbo engine, 365 HP (total system power), 30 mpg combined, 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds - $4,000 8 Cylinder, 6.2L, 455 HP, 20 mpg combined, 0-60 mph in 4.0 seconds - $4,000 8 Cylinder, 6.2L, Hybrid engine, 545 HP (total system power), 24 mpg combined, 0-60 mph in 3.7 seconds - $8,000 There are few things to take note of,
      No V6 option is listed among the choices The turbo 2.7L is likely the same found in the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra. Also, the 310 horsepower output is the same as Ford's 2.3L EcoBoost. The turbocharged 2.0L hybrid sees a one second drop in 0-60 mph time when compared to the standard 2.0L. Plus, the combined figure rises 5 to 7 mpg - depending on the transmission. The V8 hybrid setup only sees a 0.3-second decrease in the 0-60 mph run, but an increase of 4 mpgs. We need to note that the results of this survey might not result in a hybrid Camaro.
      "We routinely survey our customers across all of our vehicles on potential future technologies or features, but that doesn’t mean we are going to institute them,” a GM spokesman told Motor Authority.
      But it is clear that GM is watching Ford closely with the hybrid Mustang. Who knows, maybe the next-generation Camaro will offer some sort of hybrid power?
      Source: Camaro6, Motor Authority
    • By William Maley
      When one automaker comes up with an interesting idea, usually others will follow. See German crossover 'coupes' as an example. With Ford working on a hybrid version of the Mustang, it doesn't come as a surprise that Chevrolet is looking into this as well.
      Back in August, a poster on the Camaro6 forum got a screenshot with a survey asking Camaro owners which powertrain they would consider if they bought a new sports car. Respondents were given the four choices listed below, or None of the Above:
      4 Cylinder, 2.7L, Turbo engine, 310 HP, 25 mpg combined, 0-60 mph in 5.2 seconds - $0 4 Cylinder, 2.0L, Hybrid Turbo engine, 365 HP (total system power), 30 mpg combined, 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds - $4,000 8 Cylinder, 6.2L, 455 HP, 20 mpg combined, 0-60 mph in 4.0 seconds - $4,000 8 Cylinder, 6.2L, Hybrid engine, 545 HP (total system power), 24 mpg combined, 0-60 mph in 3.7 seconds - $8,000 There are few things to take note of,
      No V6 option is listed among the choices The turbo 2.7L is likely the same found in the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra. Also, the 310 horsepower output is the same as Ford's 2.3L EcoBoost. The turbocharged 2.0L hybrid sees a one second drop in 0-60 mph time when compared to the standard 2.0L. Plus, the combined figure rises 5 to 7 mpg - depending on the transmission. The V8 hybrid setup only sees a 0.3-second decrease in the 0-60 mph run, but an increase of 4 mpgs. We need to note that the results of this survey might not result in a hybrid Camaro.
      "We routinely survey our customers across all of our vehicles on potential future technologies or features, but that doesn’t mean we are going to institute them,” a GM spokesman told Motor Authority.
      But it is clear that GM is watching Ford closely with the hybrid Mustang. Who knows, maybe the next-generation Camaro will offer some sort of hybrid power?
      Source: Camaro6, Motor Authority

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Consumer Reports' has unveiled the results of their 2018 Auto Reliability Survey and it was not a good showing for the domestics. Only two domestic brands finished in the top 20 - Ford which came in 18th and Buick who placed 19th. The latter dropping 11 spots in this year's survey. The rest of the domestic brands finished in the bottom half with Ram, Tesla, and Cadillac finishing 26th to 28th. Finishing last was Volvo with CR saying the brand's Sensus Connect infotainment system being the reason for the drop.
      What finished towards the top? For 2018, Lexus and Toyota take the top two spots. Mazda saw the biggest improvement, jumping nine spots to third place. Completing the top ten are Subaru, Kia, Infiniti, Audi, BMW, MINI, and Hyundai.
      CR's predicted new-vehicle reliability ratings are derived from an annual questionnaire sent to their subscribers asking about the vehicles they own. The group reports that it had gotten responses for over "500,000 vehicles in its latest survey."
      A key reason why a number of brands saw a drop in the rankings is due to implementing new and complex technologies. A key example is vehicles equipped with 9 and 10-speed transmissions.
      Source: Consumer Reports


      Consumer Reports Annual Reliability Survey: Tesla and Other Domestic Brands Take Big Steps Backwards in Rankings
      Asian automakers again top the list for most reliable; Volvo drops to last amid shift to new designs YONKERS, NY — It was a rough year for domestic brands, according to Consumer Reports’ (CR) latest Annual Auto Reliability Survey, which collected data from its members about their experiences with more than half a million vehicles. Buick, Chevrolet, Chrysler, and Tesla are among the brands that tumbled in the organization’s predicted new-car reliability rankings announced at a news conference before the Automotive Press Association in Detroit today.
      Every domestic automaker landed in the bottom-half of CR’s latest reliability rankings, which covers 29 brands this year - two more than 2017. Ford ranks the highest at 18, down three spots from the previous year. Right below Ford on the list is Buick, which had performed well in recent years and was in the top 10 last year. Cadillac is the worst-rated domestic manufacturer and ranks near the very bottom at 28.
      Asian brands, led by Lexus, Toyota, and Mazda, in that order, continue to be the best for new car reliability in CR’s survey, which is the largest of its kind. Seven of the top 10 brands in this year’s reliability rankings are from Japan and South Korea, including Subaru, Kia, Infiniti, and Hyundai.
      Three European brands, Audi, BMW, and Mini, round out the top 10. Audi and BMW both declined from last year. Three other brands, Porsche, Volkswagen, and Mercedes-Benz, finished midpack. Volvo finished last overall.
      Tesla fell six spots from last year and now ranks third-worst (27 out of 29). The Model S dropped to “Below Average” this year, and its Overall Score is no longer high enough to be “Recommended” by CR. Owners reported suspension problems and other issues that included the extending door handle.  (Please see chart below.) The Model X SUV remained “Much-Worse-Than-Average” for reliability, with ongoing problems including the falcon-wing doors and center display screen. On the flip side, the Model 3 sedan has “Average” predicted reliability based on owner feedback.
      “While the Tesla Model S appears very similar physically to the car that launched six years ago, Tesla has made many significant mechanical and software changes over the past few years. Just as we’ve seen with many other manufacturers, major changes and updates can cause reliability to slide. It can take a year or two for carmakers to work out the kinks with new technology,” said Jake Fisher, Director of Auto Testing at CR. “Making air suspension and AWD standard in the 2017 model has added more complexity and more things that could potentially falter.” 
      “Time and again, consumers tell us that reliability is what matters most when it comes to choosing a vehicle that will meet their families’ needs,” said Marta L. Tellado, President and CEO of Consumer Reports. “That’s why we conduct this exhaustive survey each year—to equip people with the trustworthy information they need to make confident choices, which in turn helps drive the market toward even greater reliability.”
      Consumer Reports’ survey also reveals that some automakers--striving for improved fuel economy--are clearly making more reliable turbocharged engines than others. When compared to the average non-turbo engine among 2016-2018 models, overall, Lexus makes the most reliable turbo powertrain, followed by Honda and Porsche. On the other end of the spectrum, Hyundai and Mini have the most problematic turbos. There hasn’t been a common thread to explain the problems, but new powertrains have the propensity to be problematic in their first few years.
      “Not only are auto manufacturers adding more and more turbocharged engines, but they’re increasingly pairing them to high-tech transmissions with eight, nine, even 10 gears,” Fisher added. “With this added complexity, it’s not surprising to see some brands struggling to get them right, particularly the ones that don’t have a long history of producing turbos.” 
      Newly “Recommended” models show some bright spots for Detroit:  Dodge, GMC edge up; Other domestics slide down
      Consumer Reports’ prediction of new-car reliability is a key element of CR’s Overall Score. The score also includes road-test performance, owner satisfaction survey results, whether a vehicle comes with key safety systems, and results from crash tests, if applicable. This year there are more than a dozen vehicles with reliability ratings that improved enough to lift their Overall Scores to enable them to be “CR Recommended.”
      Overall, there is a lot of reshuffling among the brands in CR’s latest predicted new-car reliability rankings, with most domestic brands moving down the list. But reliability for some key models from Detroit has risen over the past year, allowing CR to “Recommend” them. Those vehicles include the Cadillac XTS, Chevrolet Cruze, Chevrolet Suburban, Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger, and Lincoln Continental.
      Brands from Fiat Chrysler Automotive (FCA) continue to occupy the bottom third of CR’s rankings. Dodge edges up three spots to number 21 out of 29 brands thanks partly to the “Better-Than-Average” reliability rating of the Dodge Charger, which has steadily improved over the past few years. The Dodge Grand Caravan continues to have “Average” reliability, while the Challenger, Durango, and Journey all stay “Below-Average.” Jeep has mixed results, falling two spots to 22. The Grand Cherokee and Renegade improve to “Average,” while the Cherokee and Compass SUVs have “Below-Average” reliability. Chrysler drops seven spots to number 24. While the Chrysler 300 improves to “Average,” the Pacifica minivan falls to “Below-Average.” Ram was the worst-charting FCA brand at 26.
      GMC inches up one spot to number 25 due to average or above reliability for the Terrain, Yukon, and Yukon XL. The Acadia and all the pickup trucks rate “Below-Average.”
      Other GM brands saw their place in the rankings fall from last year. Buick, which had recently been a bright spot for reliability among all domestics, falls 11 spots to 19 – this year’s biggest decline. The redesigned Enclave SUV had a “Much-Worse-Than-Average” rating, with owners reporting problems related to the new nine-speed automatic transmission. Chevrolet is down five places to number 23, in part because the redesigned Traverse had “Much-Worse-Than-Average” reliability. Cadillac is again the worst-performing of the GM brands, dropping one spot to 28. Only the XTS sedan rates “Better-Than-Average” for reliability.
      Ford ranks number 18, down three spots from last year. The Taurus, the oldest model in Ford’s fleet, has “Much-Better-Than-Average” reliability. But the usually reliable Fusion drops to “Below-Average”, mainly because of problems with the Sync 3 infotainment system screen. The Mustang and Explorer are “Worse-Than- Average.” As for 20th ranked Lincoln, its bright spot is the Continental’s "Much-Better-Than-Average” reliability rating. The MKC, MKX, and the MKZ are “Below Average.”

      Volvo sinks to last in down year overall for Europe
      Volvo drops six spots from last year as it rapidly brings a number of new models to market. It’s now in last-place among the 29 brands in the survey due in large part to an infotainment system that’s common to a number of different models including the XC60 and XC90 and the S 90. For the XC60, owners also reported problems with the climate system and interior cabin rattles.
      Other European automakers also lost ground. Audi tumbles three spots to seven on the list. BMW falls three spots to eight, followed by Mini at number nine. Mercedes-Benz declines three spots to number 17. The C-Class coupe and sedan improves to “Average,” but the GLC and E-Class are “Below-Average.” Porsche bucks the trend in this group, rising two places to number 11.
      Lexus, Toyota trade places at the top as Asia dominance persists
      Lexus and Toyota take the top two spots, respectively, in CR’s predicted new-car reliability rankings, as they have for six years in a row. Mazda jumps nine spots in the rankings to third overall, making it the year’s biggest gainer, as the automaker worked out the problems that plagued the CX-9 and MX-5 Miata roadster. Subaru continues its recent march up the chart, rising two places to fourth overall.
      The Infiniti brand also rebounds slightly, with the Q50 getting an “Average” score and the QX60 improving to “Above Average.” Nissan similarly tumbles a few slots, even with both the Maxima and the redesigned Leaf rating above average.
      Honda turns in mixed results, landing at 15, which is six spots lower from the year prior. The brand’s reliability is bogged down by some of its new and redesigned models. The Odyssey and the Clarity have “Much-Worse-Than-Average” reliability, and the CR-V and new Accord drops to “Average.” However, Acura seems to have worked out recent trouble spots with its new transmissions and infotainment systems. Honda’s luxury brand gains six spots in this year’s rankings to number 13.
      Kia drops two spots but remained in the top-ten as its all-new Stinger hatchback rates “Average” for reliability, as was the Sportage. Hyundai comes in at number 10, and its luxury Genesis brand is close behind. The G80 has “Above Average” reliability, and the G90 is below average, with reported problems in the area of body hardware and power equipment.
  • Posts

    • DRIVEN: 2020 Subaru Ascent Premium (AWD 2.4 turbo) HIGHS: -Finally, what the market was looking for, a worthwhile Subaru entry into the 3 row crossover segment.  And packaging, size wise, styling, just about perfect for Subaru -2.4 engine can snarl, nice go juice, and the CVT is actually fairly responsive.  Moves out well, or at least feels like it does.  Makes the Ascent feel sporty actually. -As mentioned above, packaging is just about perfect for Subaru.  It might be considered a tweener, but it does not feel hulking or girthy...and it still will be garagable for many of those folks that would shop import brands.  Cabin width not as wide as a Traverse, noticeably so...but conversely feels like a nice size upgrade from an Outback.  Maybe if you try to have three in the second row its a concern but otherwise should be ok.  Plenty of comfort remains and the third row is decent sized for leg room.  This may be the sweet spot size of a 3 row for many customers. -Cloth seats were attractive and did feel nice at the bottom. -Simple clean dash layout, noticeably signature Subaru.  Some interesting trim.   -Open and airy feel inside the cabin, and likewise visibility out.  In particular in front it doesn't feel significantly larger in front then a Forester or Outback. -Carlike ride and handling.  At least in line with the sort of current expectations of a Subaru / Toyota / Honda type of customer.  And reasonably quiet inside. -Nothing particularly egregious, and entirely in line with Subaru and Japanese car in general brand character.  If you are a Subaru fan, this is your manna, this should EXCITE you. LOWS: ...all that said (above) -A few times I caught the CVT with its pants down and it went into slow response / rubber bandy mode. -Dash, to me, did feel plain and basic (and that also is entirely in character for a Subaru).  I will go on record saying that a Traverse is nicer inside and much more interesting.  -Steering felt light and numb enough that I can't say it was anything besides decent.  All while being a huge upgrade in steering compared to other Subarus I have driven the last few years.  It is very much improved compared to those.  And the suspension was composed enough in the Ascent that it didn't bounce and bob and weave like I had when i drove a Forester before. -I didn't dissect the cargo area greatly but I do think maybe it is down a little bit in terms of usable dimensions compared to say, a Traverse or Atlas....probably as useful or more useful than an Acadia. -At the end of the day, apart from the kind of lively powertrain, the whole rest of the vehicle is MILQUETOAST.  Which, if you are a Subaru fan, should EXCITE you.  I mean, I think a Santa Fe may be more appealing emotionally.  I was expecting something to feed the soul here, there is nothing.  How they made it still feel lifeless while still miraculously making this vastly improved over other Subarus, must have required special skill. SUMMARY: At the end of the day, a perfectly innocuous but highly useful device that absolutely fulfills the Subaru brand character while at the same time borders on being something equal to the NPC version of an automobile.  And some will absolutely love that.  While superbly capable, I think I VASTLY prefer my GM's or even the VW Atlas.  Seek those out instead if you want ANY personality in your 3 row family hauler.        
    • DRIVEN: 2020 Ford Explorer XLT 2.3 Ecoboost 4WD   MSRP 39,770 HIGHS:  -Complete redesign is sharp looking in the flesh, while still familiar and identifiable as an Explorer at the same time -Size was not sacrificed in the redesign, the Explorer is still a nice large vehicle in a time where EPA pressures are forcing smaller vehicles. -New RWD architecture dramatically improves space efficiency and driving feel all at the same time.  That combination almost never has been able to exist before.  Truly a complete beneficial ground up redesign. -2.3 Ecoboost now mated to new 10 speed automatic has nice pep and verve for most drivers, sounds good and smooth and refined enough.  New 10 speed worked real well. -Wow, what a change in the view out the hood.  Short front end (how did they do that with a RWD chassis?) and it drops away from line of sight such that your view out the front is open and airy and very easy to see what is going on; really quite awesome as far as that goes.  Fairly good visibility back and sides for an SUV otherwise compared to some others. -LOTS of ergonomic and interior packaging improvements.  The front seats are now farther apart and give a feel of a wider cabin, partially due to much thinner doors.  The seats themselves, while a bit shy of support are typical Ford spacious for wide MUHRICAN bottoms.  Even the base cloth feels of good quality.  The new gauge cluster is very nice, big upgrade over typical Ford (and this the base cluster).  The touch screen is nicely located and responsive and good looking.  The climate controls are simple and nicely within reach.  There is a nice wide console / armrest and a handy slot for phone or pens right below the touch screen.  Easy and get in the rear two seats and move around the cabin.  What a nice change overall in interior environment from past Fords, while still easily feeling like a Ford. -Trunk behind third row has neat flip up for a lower, flatter floor for your grocery bags (like other competitors do).  Not as big behind row 3 as maybe some others, but overall cargo capacity seems just fine. -OK, RWD fans, yes this drives like a RWD vehicle...you feel pushed.  I am not used to that anymore but the feel is such that those who like the feel of RWD, here you go.  A big difference in feel between the 2019 and 2020. -Overall the chassis, ride, etc, the overall feel of the vehicle is that of a rugged, large, solid, sturdy ride.  And decent steering feel.  This does not feel completely like a truck or completely like a typical crossover SUV / car.  It is something inbetween and I think drivers who have been looking forward to this new RWD chassis will like this.  This vehicle feels like it would handle rural and rugged environments better than some other typical competitors.  Perhaps this also partly why this is Ford's new police vehicle. LOWS: -These new Fords coming out this year its been discussed that they may have cheap interior bits.  There is some of that going on here.  The door and dash plastics seem like they might be very thin and the graining I think would come off more expensive looking if the quality of the plastic were better.  We don't always expect much from Ford anyways for interior quality so this may not be terribly egregious anyways.  If i compare it to the Traverse, I don't think you can say the Ford has better interior material quality.  The Traverse IMO may still have the better interior. -The 2.3 engine while working for most people I think there will be plenty of folks drawn to the Explorer because of the RWD chassis, I might recommend they try the ST version with the high power v6....or the upcoming hybrid.  If you like this vehicle and plan to invest in one long term you might see payback in owner satisfaction by upping for the more powerful options.  I do think overall the feel of a six or even 8 cylinder motor would be more at home in this new ride. -While as i said above, that Ford did a good job with the design, it almost already feels old to me.  It is so familiar looking that while still looking new is actually a bit tough for average people to pick out next to the 2019 (which i drove side by side before this).  Color and model may help you get a unique looking Explorer, just keep that in mind.  I guess the evolutionary styling works for Subaru etc.   -Seats could have been more supportive IMO.  I just think automakers are paring away so much at every gram of weight that items like the seats keep getting pared down so they don't feel as solid as maybe they could. -Notice I said above RWD fans will probably like the ride and handling of the Explorer.  I think those that like something more carlike may not care for the somewhat trucky feel.  This will be personal preference.  In addition, the vehicle may feel too large to some.  Also, personal preference.  It felt heavy, not really agile or athletic. SUMMARY: A bellweather, a successful reinvention and repositioning of the Explorer more back to its roots and slightly a bit out of the mainstream of a crossover market segment it purposely worked to fit into with the previous generation.  With its reinvention, it is a breath of fresh air into what has turned into a 'me too' segment.  Still, apart from some typical Ford cheapness inside, this brand new design should sell like hotcakes and please old and new Explorer fans alike.  I see this design carrying on for 8-10 years and being a big profit center for Ford.  My own personal rating is a B+ for interior cheapness and as I prefer the carlike FWD feel of some of the competition, but overall I give big props to Ford for going back to what fits into the Explorer brand character in what will be a hugely successful new design.    
  • Social Stream

  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...